J.J. Abrams: Star Wars script is finished

J.J. Abrams has confirmed the 'Star Wars: Episode VII' script is finished.
The filmmaker says he and screenwriter Lawrence Kasdan have completed the screenplay for the upcoming sci-fi film ahead of schedule.
Speaking at the Television Critics Association's press tour, Abrams said: 'We're working really hard and we've got our script and we're in deep prep. We're full steam ahead.'
Abrams and Kasdan took over writing duties from 'Little Miss Sunshine' scribe Michael Arndt - who left the project over creative differences - last year.
The 'Star Trek' helmer also revealed he has been in talks with 'Breaking Bad' actor Jesse Plemons for one of the leading roles in the new 'Star Wars' film.
He said: 'He is one of the actors that we've talked to but it's not often that I read about actors that I'm going to be meeting.
'I get to read articles about actors who are going to come in. And so I get to see someone and say, 'Oh, I read that I was going to see you!' '
Abrams dismissed the likelihood of the seventh chapter being shot with IMAX, although he would use it 'in the right situation'.
According to Entertainment Weekly, the director explained: 'The problem with IMAX is that it's a very loud camera. It's a very unreliable camera. Only so much film can be in the camera.
'You can't really do intimate scenes with it. It's slow. They break down often. But we're going to be shooting this next movie on film.'
'Star Wars: Episode VII' is due out on December 18, 2015.

Fox announces X-Men: Apocalypse for 2016

20th Century Fox have confirmed a new 'X-Men' movie for 2016.
The film studio and director/producer Bryan Singer announced 'X-Men: Apocalypse' will hit cinemas on May 27, 2016, two years after the release of next year's highly anticipated 'X-Men: Days of Future Past'.
It's thought the film will feature Marvel villain Apocalypse, who in comic book lore claims to be the world's first mutant and menaces the X-Men heroes.
The character featured in the 1990s' 'Age of Apocalypse' storyline.
The film's release date falls on the same day as Disney's 'Alice in Wonderland 2' and two weeks before fellow Marvel superhero Spider-Man swings into action in 'The Amazing Spider-Man 3'.
It's not yet known which cast members from the 'X-Men' series will star in the movie, but the next 'X-Men' film - 'Days of Future Past' - will boast an all-star cast including the stars of the original 'X-Men' trilogy, which was released between 2000 and 2006, and 2011's 'X-Men: First Class' prequel film.
'Days of Future Past' will star Sir Ian McKellen, Sir Patrick Stewart, James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender, Hugh Jackman, Jennifer Lawrence, Halle Berry, Anna Paquin, Ellen Page and many more.
Fox is also working on a spin-off series titled, 'X-Force', and has hired 'Kick-Ass 2' director-and-writer Jeff Wadlow to pen the script.
'X-Force' is based on the comic book series of the same name and centres on a group of younger, more rebellious heroes than the characters in its parent franchise.
The superhero team is led by a futuristic character called Cable, who is related to 'X-Men' characters Cyclops and Jean Grey and possesses robotic body parts and telekinetic powers.

Olympics ‘a moment of opportunity’ for Russia

Attorney Kenneth Roth has been the executive director of Human Rights Watch, a leading international human rights organization active in more than 90 countries, since 1993.

DW: The initial talks on Syria have just ended. What's your assessment?

Kenneth Roth: I don't think anybody's surprised that these peace talks didn't really get anyplace, and nobody thinks they're going to move anyplace anytime soon. So to me the real question is, while the peace talks continue, and proceed for probably months and months and months, what is going to be done on the side to address the Syrian government strategy of deliberately killing as many civilians as possible in opposition-held areas to drive them away, depriving those same civilians of the basic humanitarian assistance they need to survive?

So far, the US government's answer to that has been to say 'We're talking peace. We're going to solve it all when we have peace.' That's not a good enough answer. There's a need for the US government to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. They can talk peace, but they also have to put pressure on Syria to stop the deliberate killing of civilians and to open the borders to humanitarian assistance.

How should Washington do that? Is the US accusation that Syria isn't moving quickly enough to destroy its chemical weapons a step in that direction?

Washington, so far, has focused almost exclusively on the chemical weapons deal. Which is important, but we have to recognize that chemical weapons are responsible for fewer than 2 percent of the Syrian deaths in this conflict. The other 98 percent have been caused by conventional weapons. Washington doesn't talk about that. The millions of people who today are facing starvation, loss of medical supplies, huge hazards, Washington doesn't talk about them either, other than in terms of so-called confidence-building measures - opening up this or that besieged area. But there's no real pressure on Syria to allow the massive cross-border humanitarian assistance that is needed.

We do have a moment of opportunity now. The Sochi Olympics are opening shortly. And Russia is going to be reluctant to continue its veto in this period. It doesn't want to be seen as underwriting the deprivation of millions of Syrians as the Olympics open. So what we'd like to urge is for Russia to use the opening of the Olympics to allow an opening of the Syrian borders. Russia clearly has the leverage with Assad to get him to change. When the chemical weapons deal was done between [Russian Foreign Minister Sergei] Lavrov and [US Secretary of State John] Kerry, Lavrov spent all of about 20 minutes talking with Assad before he was basically ordered to comply.

We need that leverage to be used now at least to open up the borders. There is probably going to be a resolution introduced at the United Nations next week, which will go beyond the non-binding presidential statement that was adopted in October and will insist that Syria open the borders to humanitarian assistance. I hope that Russia does not veto that resolution, and indeed I hope the US allows it to go forward, rather than proceeding in a one-dimensional strategy that all they will do is talk peace and they won't do anything to stop the killing and the deprivation in the many, many months until we get peace.

What, concretely, would you like Washington to do?

The resolution at the Security Council is likely to be introduced by a combination of Australia, Luxembourg and Jordan. The first thing for Washington to do is not to block that. To recognize that it's possible to engage Russia as a partner in peace talks but at the same time to put pressure on Russia to pressure Assad to stop the killing, and most important at this stage, to open up the humanitarian corridors. If the US allows it to go forward, then the key is, will Russia veto - and frankly we're banking that, at this stage - with so much deprivation, with the peace talks going nowhere fast, with the Olympics about to open - that Russia is going to be willing to take this next step and, in the spirit of the opening of the Olympics, insist that Assad open the borders.

Turning to Ukraine: The country's military has warned the government and the opposition about the stalemate. What is your take on the dire situation there?

I was pleased to see that [President Viktor] Yanukovych took a step backward from his effort to implement a Putin strategy a week ago. Putin met with similar protests in Russia, and basically tarred non-governmental organizations as so-called foreign agents, he restricted protests, he threw people in prison, he engaged in this demagogic kind of anti-homosexual-propaganda law, he did a number of things to repress the opposition and to rally a conservative base. For a while it looked like Yanukovych was taking a page from Putin's book, then he backed off, and the Ukrainian parliament has repealed a lot of the repressive measures it instituted just a week ago.

There has been some violence on the part of the protesters, some of the more extreme elements, and it's important that that stop. But, it's also important that the government, in responding to it as it has a duty to do, not respond in an overly broad fashion: That it should recognize that it should be dealing with only the protesters engaged in violence, and everyone else has a right to continue protesting.

So if those basic principles are respected, the repressive laws are repealed, the right of protesters respected, then it should be possible for a peaceful dialogue to take place and some kind of political reconciliation to occur. But, if Yanukovych, or the army, resorts to the kind of repressive means that they were playing with just a week ago, that's going to spell disaster for Ukraine, and it's very important to avoid that.

There have also been reports of torture on the part of the government forces. Can you corroborate this?

There was one activist we know of who disappeared several days ago. He was simply abducted and we didn't know what happened to him. He has now reappeared, having been severely tortured by what he described as 'Russian-speaking thugs.' We don't know precisely who did it, but it certainly looks very suspicious. That is the kind of mistreatment of protesters, particularly the leaders where it is absolutely urgent that the government guard against it. I hope the government launches an immediate investigation to see who these individuals were. Were they operating with government authority? Was it the Russians? Whoever it was, they should be brought to justice.

President Yanukovych has so far refused to step down, as demanded by the opposition. Can he stay in power?

Clearly that's an issue that's very contested. Human Rights Watch doesn't take a position on those broader political issues. Our concern is really with the rights of the individuals involved. As long as the protesters are free to assemble on the streets, as long as they are free to speak out, as long as they are not subject to arbitrary violence, we will let the political process play itself out. We don't take a position on who ultimately the leader of Ukraine should be.

There's something of a tug-of-war going on over Ukraine between the EU and Russia. What do you make of that? Who has the better arguments?

Obviously there are economic and security arguments behind all this. But at the bottom of it is an argument of freedom. What the European Union represents in its offer of closer engagement is a future of freedom for the people of Ukraine with the full panoply of rights that Europeans enjoy day-to-day. What Russia and Putin represent if Ukraine is pulled in their direction with the combination of threats and bribes that Putin has offered is a future of bleak authoritarianism, of a political regime that increasingly looks back to the Soviet era as its inspiration, rather than a future of democratic freedom. So there is a very stark choice before the Ukrainian people, and my hope is that at least this choice can be discussed openly with respect to the rights of all, without the use of violence.

What signal does the Maidan revolution send to other peoples in the region?

Frankly, I think part of why Putin has responded so vigorously to the Ukrainian protests is that he has long feared a revolution in Russia. And he has gone out of his way for years to try to avoid that. Suddenly, there is what looks like a possible popular revolt in the most important country of the former Soviet Union other than Russia. And he's terrified by that. This is his nightmare.

So I think the protests do represent a revival of hope. We've seen many of these kinds of protests go awry in the Middle East and North Africa. It's been a long time since one has succeeded - maybe the closest has been Tunisia. But suddenly there's real hope in a major European country. And if it succeeds, it's going to be a bright signal for people around the world.

Germany takes a fresh look at its Africa policy

The most recent messages from Germany must have sounded very encouraging to German allies. They have been demanding for a long time that Germany assume more responsibility internationally. Chancellor Angela Merkel has now emphasized that Germany is prepared to take on more commitments in Africa. That is precisely what Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen had previously demanded: more responsibility in dealing with conflicts throughout the world, even militarily.

For many commentators it appeared to signal a renaissance of German foreign policy when Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier declared: 'As correct as it may be to pursue a policy of military restraint, it should not be mistaken for a general shying away from responsibility. Germany has become slightly too big and too influential in Europe for that.'

Africa is no unknown territory for Germany's armed forces

But Germany has not stayed on the sidelines entirely in Africa up to now. The neighboring continent has gradually been becoming a more important focus of German foreign and security policy. For years German soldiers have been deployed in and around Africa: In addition to supporting the EU anti-pirate mission off the Horn of Africa, Germany's armed forces, the Bundeswehr, also contribute military observers and liaison officers in Sudan, Congo and the Western Sahara. In Mali, the Bundeswehr is participating in the training of Malian security forces.

Now the German government wants to bolster the troop strength of the EU training mission in Mali. Instead of the previous maximum of 180 soldiers, up to 250 German soldiers can be dispatched to Mali in the future. In regard to the Central African Republic, the possibility of the Bundeswehr supporting the future EU mission with transport planes and medically equipped aircraft is under discussion. But Merkel, Steinmeier and von der Leyen have all excluded dispatching combat troops.
In Germany itself, Bundeswehr deployments abroad are controversial. In an opinion poll conducted by the opinion research institute YouGov for the German news agency dpa, half of the people polled were opposed to a stronger involvement of the Bundeswehr.

For Wibke Hansen, the deputy director of the Center for International Peace Operations in Berlin, there are several arguments in favor of German engagement in Africa. One of them is crossborder security threats: 'In Mali, for example, transnational organized crime in the Sahel zone is certainly a factor for Europe, as is the threat posed by terrorist groups,' Hansen says. Therefore, it is in Europe's interest that Africa is stabilized.

Another reason is that a larger conflict in crisis-stricken areas of Africa often does not only mean a humanitarian catastrophe, but also generates streams of refugees to Europe. So far, economic interests have only played a secondary role for Germany. Nevertheless, Germany is interested in economic cooperation with African countries.

Greater focus on alliance policy?

What is also of major importance to the German government is a strengthening of European alliance policy. For Defense Committee chairman Hans-Peter Bartels of the Social Democratic Party (SPD), the coalition partner of Merkel's Christian Democrats, it is clear that Germany and Europe will continue to face challenges when there are crises in Africa.

'For the Americans and the Chinese, conflicts and civil wars in Africa will not be a a major focus. It's the Europeans who have to come to the aid of the neighboring continent,' Bartels said in a DW interview.

But European allies have also repeatedly criticized Germany in the past. Under Steinmeier's predecessor, Guido Westerwelle of the Liberal Free Democrats (FDP), German foreign policy was characterized by strict military restraint: support for allies, yes; military intervention, no. Particularly Germany's abstention in the UN Security Council vote on intervention in the civil war in Libya had annoyed the Western allies.

The search for an Africa strategy

How a further expansion of Germany’s involvement in Africa could look is still open. The government has not yet presented its strategy in detail.

A long term strategy for Africa cannot be a military strategy, says Hans-Peter Bartels. It must above all be a strategy for development. But the military operation in Mali is not likely to end soon. The German armed forces association estimates that it could last at least 10 years, due to the desolate state of the Malian army. Defense Minister von der Leyen intends to see for herself how accurate this is when she travels to Mali in early February.

US President Obama focuses on economic inequality during State of the Union address

President Barack Obama called for a 'year of action,' in his annual State of the Union address Tuesday evening.

The speech, made to a joint session of Congress, was Obama's opportunity to try to breathe new life into his second term after a year plagued by a divisive Congress and international tensions.

Obama pledged to bypass a Republican-controlled House of Representatives and take action on his own without legislation, where he could, to strengthen America's middle class.

With a large part of Obama's speech focusing on addressing economic inequality he said that despite four years of economic growth joblessness, deeper inequality and stalled economic mobility remain major issues.

'The cold, hard fact is that even in the midst of recovery, too many Americans are working more than ever just to get by - let alone get ahead. And too many still aren't working at all. Our job is to reverse these trends.'

He called on Congress to pass a bill already introduced that would increase the federal minimum wage from 7.25 dollars (5.31 euros) an hour to 10.10 dollars. The measure would also, for the first time, tie the minimum wage to inflation.

Environment, healthcare, immigration in focus

Obama also talked about the need to tackle climate change and shift to a cleaner energy economy, a statement that could foreshadow more executive actions to reduce carbon emissions.

'Climate change is a fact. And when our children's children look us in the eye and ask if we did all we could to leave them a safer, more stable world, with new sources of energy, I want us to be able to say yes, we did,' he said.

On one of his biggest priorities, immigration reform, Obama encouraged Congress to work together to achieve an overhaul of the law this year. He said reforms would create thousands of jobs and boost the economy by $1 trillion over two decades.

On his healthcare initiative, Obama defended the overhaul law he signed in 2010.

'I don't expect to convince my Republican friends on the merits of this law,' Obama said. 'But I know that the American people aren't interested in refighting old battles.'

International policy

Shifting the focus abroad, Obama vowed continued support for Afghanistan after all US combat troops are removed from the country by the end of 2014. However, he called on Afghan President Hamid Karzai to sign a security agreement with Washington that would allow 'a small force of Americans' to remain after combat operations end.

'For while our relationship with Afghanistan will change, one thing will not: our resolve that terrorists do not launch attacks against our country,' he said.

Obama also said that with the Afghan war ending, now is the time for Congress to lift restrictions on transferring detainees from the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba so that it can be closed this year.

Obama also reiterated his plans to reform US surveillance programs after details of mass spying were revealed by whistleblower Edward Snowden. Obama said the intelligence community depends on 'public confidence, here and abroad, that the privacy of ordinary people is not being violated.'

The president also urged Congress to hold off on fresh sanctions against Iran, which is currently in talks over its controversial nuclear program.

'If this Congress sends me a new sanctions bill now that threatens to derail these talks, I will veto it,' he said.

Republican rebuttal

Following Obama’s address, US Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers delivered the official Republican response, saying the Republican Party 'champions free markets - and trusts people to make their own decisions, not a government that decides for you.'

She said Republicans will focus on creating jobs without increasing government spending, government bailouts and red tape, she said.

Nobel nod for Snowden

Edward Snowden has been nominated for Nobel Peace Prize by two Norwegian lawmakers. The ex-NSA contractor leaked information to the press last year about massive US surveillance on private citizens and foreign leaders.

Revelations about extensive US spying on its own citizens, as well as on those from countries around the globe, was reason enough to nominate whistleblower Edward Snowden for one of the Nobel committee's most prestigious accolades, according to the Norwegian socialist parliamentarian Snorre Valen. Valen, along with fellow lawmaker Vegard Solhjell, submitted a nomination for Snowden on Wednesday.

"There is no doubt that the actions of Edward Snowden may have damaged the security interests of several nations in the short term," Solhjell and Valen said in a joint statement.

"We are, however, convinced that the public debate and changes in policy that have followed in the wake of Snowden's whistle blowing has contributed to a more stable and peaceful world order," they said.

There was no immediate comment available from Snowden, who is currently living at an undisclosed location in Russia.

In early summer, revelations of the National Security Agency's (NSA) spy program were published in the British daily the Guardian and the Washington Post based on information their journalists had been given by Edward Snowden. The articles turned out to be the first of many which disclosed to the public, among other things, that the US had been collecting phone metadata from its own citizens, as well as citizens from Europe.

It was also found that the NSA had been eavesdropping on foreign leaders, including German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

The revelations sparked public outcry and threatened to undermine the US relations with some of its closest allies.

Snowden's name will be considered along with several hundred other nominees by the Nobel Committee.

Last year, the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) won the award, beating out nearly 260 other candidates.

Leonardo DiCaprio has Wall Street back injury

Leonardo DiCaprio is still recovering from a back injury he sustained on 'The Wolf of Wall Street'.
The actor - who is up for an Oscar for his role in the banking drama - hurt his back when filming a scene where he falls down a stone staircase while on Quaaludes for the movie, and is still finding it hard to move properly. 
DiCaprio has had to abandon his exercise regime and it's going to take him months to fully recover.
A source told America's Star magazine: 'He says he is in non-stop pain and has gained weight because he can't exercise. It hurts to lie down for too long, and it's agony to twist his body into any crazy positions.
'Leo hasn't even been partying, because dancing is painful.' 
DiCaprio's performance as disgraceful stockbroker Jordan Belfort has earned him a Best Actor Oscar nomination and of course if he were to walk away from the Academy Awards with the prize 'it would ease the pain'.
DiCaprio, 39, has previously admitted the part was a dream role for him and although he is thrilled the film received five Oscar nominations he is just happy it got made.
He previously said: 'To me the fact we even got to make this film is a gift, there are two films that I've really wanted to do in my life and I've worked really hard to make and it's this and 'The Aviator' so it's a great feeling.'