'Chad Bianco, he needs to drop out'

'I don't know what would make someone do this to her'

'Undeniably warrant a life sentence'

'Ok, then nothing'

News Fallout How Fallout Season 2 Avoided Making a New Vegas Ending Canon Fallout Season 2 avoided committing to one of New Vegas’ optional endings (at least for now) By Matthew Byrd | Published on February 4, 2026 Photo: Prime Video Comment 0 Share New Share Photo: Prime Video Note: This article contains spoilers for Fallout Season 2. Fallout Season 2’s showrunners did indeed fulfill their promise of not canonizing one of Fallout: New Vegas’ optional endings, though the season’s final episode raises some new questions about how long they can keep dancing around the series’ canon.  As we’ve previously discussed, Prime Video’s Fallout series is considered to be a canonical entry in the greater Fallout video game franchise. The show is set about 10 years after the most recent Fallout game (Fallout 4), which theoretically affords the showrunners plenty of space to tell their own story without having to connect quite so many dots along the way.  In reality, the situation has never been quite so clean. The Fallout franchise is not only notorious for refusing to clearly answer certain questions about the events that transpired before and between its various entries, but some of the games allow players to essentially pick their own endings based on the choices they make along the way.  Because many of the Fallout games take place in different regions across a fairly long timeline, those optional endings are rarely an issue. However, Fallout Season 2 is set in and around the New Vegas area, which means that it seemingly had to address what actually happened in the 2010 game, Fallout: New Vegas. Specifically, the show seemingly had to commit to one of Fallout: New Vegas’ four major optional endings: Ending 1 – The player sides with the Caesar’s Legion faction. The Legion conquers the area and forces the New California Republic to retreat.  Ending 2 – The player sides with the New California Republic. The NCR reclaims New Vegas and the surrounding wasteland.  Ending 3 – The player goes their own way and essentially rules over New Vegas with the help of a Securitron robot known as Yes Man.  Ending 4 – The player helps Mr. House take control of New Vegas and drive both the NCR and Caesar’s Legion from the wasteland.  There are further optional variations between those endings, but ultimately, only one faction could rule over New Vegas at the end of the day. Because Fallout Season 2 is set about 15 years after the events of Fallout: New Vegas, surely the show would have to tell us what actually happened at the end of that game, right? Right? Well, not exactly. At first, it felt like Fallout Season 2 was going to canonize the Mr. House ending. After all, Robert House is one of the season’s biggest villains, and his continued existence (even if he’s only shown via a TV screen in the “present” timeline) suggests that he must have survived long enough to retain control over New Vegas. The fact that the Legion and NCR are a shadow of their former selves in that region also supports the idea that neither took control over the New Vegas area at the end of the game.  However, the final episode of Fallout Season 2 sees The Ghoul finally confront the digitized version of Mr. House in New Vegas. House informs The Ghoul that it’s “good to be alive again” and notes that “wandering travellers” have tried to assassinate him in various ways over the years. The Ghoul cuts House off before he can elaborate on that fascinating tidbit, but House’s point is made all the same. There is at least the suggestion that he did not survive and thrive following the events of New Vegas’ ending but rather rebooted himself as some kind of fail safe sometime after.  For their part, the Prime Video Fallout creative team not only refuses to commit to a clear answer but suggests that the ambiguity of that scenario is very much the point.  “Oftentimes, it’s intentional that things are up for interpretation, and we have our own view of things that, you know, this series is gonna go on for a while yet,” says Fallout producer Todd Howard in a recent interview. “But I think it’s good to open up those conversations, and you may get history, you may get conflicting reports on how some things went.” Ah, the old “Eh, who can say?” explanation that sometimes seems to have become increasingly popular since The Force Awakens suggested that people conveniently forgot about the events of the original Star Wars trilogy in a record amount of time. Though the suggetion that we’re simply only getting one (possibly inaccurate) side of the story is designed to be hard to dispute, it has already started arguments among fans about whether a non-answer is really an answer at all. Said arguments are fuelled by the ways the show otherwise seemingly alters other parts of the Fallout canon or teases answers to previously intentionally ambiguous questions. For instance, Fallout Season 2 introduces the former President of the United States as a character, and the season finale suggests that he and the Enclave may have been the ones who started the Great War. Showrunner Geneva Robertson-Dworet suggests she doesn’t see things “that way” and that they really only want to “open the question” about the Enclave and the President’s involvement. Such plot points are, perhaps, red herrings disguised as revelations. Continuously playing with fire regarding what did and did not happen prior to the events of the Fallout TV series is undoubtedly a dangerous game. Along with the risk of providing the “wrong” answers in the minds of some (which can sometimes mean providing any answers at all), there is the risk of continuously teasing reveals that can never really be delivered. But with Fallout Season 3 already in pre-production, it seems that the series will have plenty of time to see where it fits into the greater Fallout universe while telling its own (so far largely compelling) stories. Ultimately, perhaps there is no greater constant in the Fallout universe than ambiguity. [end-mark] The post How <i>Fallout</i> Season 2 Avoided Making a <i>New Vegas</i> Ending Canon appeared first on Reactor.

News The Exorcist Chiwetel Ejiofor Joins Mike Flanagan’s Exorcist Movie Perhaps he will be the one doing some exorcising? By Molly Templeton | Published on February 4, 2026 Screenshot: Netflix Comment 0 Share New Share Screenshot: Netflix The horrors are coming along nicely. In 2024, Mike Flanagan signed on for a new Exorcist film—one that was originally assumed to be the follow-up to David Gordon Green’s poorly received The Exorcist: Believer. But Flanagan is instead doing his own thing. In November, Scarlett Johansson signed on to star in a film that is reportedly a “radical new take” on the Exorcist franchise, set in the same universe as the 1973 original. It was previously announced that Johansson will be joined by Jacobi Jupe (Hamnet), who plays her child, and Diane Lane, whose role remains unknown. One is tempted, of course, to assume that young Jupe will wind up possessed, in keeping with the plot of the original film, but one actually knows nothing at all. Perhaps this time it’s a mother facing possession. Flanagan, who is writing and directing, is not exactly known for taking the most straightforward options. Now we’ve got one more star in a mysterious role: Chiwetel Ejiofor (The Old Guard, Children of Men) has also joined the cast, reuniting him with his Life of Chuck director. (Flanagan does love to reuse his ensemble!) According to The Hollywood Reporter, “Sources say the actor will be playing an ex-con turned priest.” The Exorcist is expected to begin production in New York City next month. It’s set to begin haunting theaters on March 12, 2027.[end-mark] The post Chiwetel Ejiofor Joins Mike Flanagan’s <i>Exorcist </i>Movie appeared first on Reactor.

The Department of Justice is investigating a disruptive protest of a Democrat congressman’s speaking engagement at a Jewish temple. On Jan. 27, protesters with the left-wing activist group Climate Defiance interrupted a constituent event of Rep. Tom Suozzi, D-N.Y., at the Temple Beth Sholom in Roslyn, New York. Suozzi was one of seven Democrats to vote for a bill funding the Department of Homeland Security, the agency that enforces federal immigration law, in January, but has since released a statement expressing regret for his vote. In videos widely circulated on social media, the protesters hurl profane insults at Suozzi, seize a microphone, and resist being escorted out of the religious space. The probe comes as the Justice Department is prosecuting former CNN anchor Don Lemon for allegedly disrupting a church service in Minnesota, under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act. NEW: Activists trolled LI Dem Rep Tom Suozzi last night at an event in his district, bringing him a diaper and knee pads as a criticism of Suozzi's vote to increased funding for ICE last week.Suozzi, one of seven House Dems to vote for the DHS spending bill, said after federal… pic.twitter.com/XnFMssXHEU— Jacqueline Sweet (@JSweetLI) January 28, 2026 In a statement to Newsday, Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon wrote, “We will investigate this incident and prosecute any individuals we determine committed a federal crime.” She added, “The Civil Rights Division does not tolerate violence or destruction of property motivated by religious animus. And the rise in antisemitism across the country in recent years demonstrates the importance of robust enforcement of our civil rights laws.” Not backing down.Message from our founder Michael Greenberg. pic.twitter.com/BRKpsuny3g— Climate Defiance (@ClimateDefiance) February 4, 2026 In response to the DOJ’s probe, Climate Defiance founder Michael Greenberg said in a statement Wednesday that although “federal law prohibits interrupting a religious service,” Suozzi’s event does not constitute a religious service. In Greenberg’s description, “what happened, rather, was that several people spoke up at an event that happened to take place in a religious space.” Climate Defiance and Suozzi’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the probe. The post DOJ Investigates Protest of Democrat’s Event at Jewish Temple appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon doesn’t care if people who obstruct worship services call themselves journalists. They’re still going to face the full penalty of the law. “I don’t care if they’re a journalist or not. I’ve personally represented numerous journalists, and I’ve been a journalist,” Dhillon told The Daily Signal in an interview. “I highly respect the press and the First Amendment.” “What I don’t respect is somebody violating somebody else’s First Amendment rights in their sanctuary, which is protected by federal law as well as the First Amendment, and that’s what happened in this case.” Don Lemon, a former CNN anchor who is now an independent journalist, has claimed that he covered the Jan. 18 invasion of Cities Church in St. Paul, Minnesota, as a journalist, and therefore is protected by the First Amendment guaranteeing freedom of the press. Between 20 and 40 agitators interrupted a Sunday service at Cities Church in order to protest a pastor they said was a member of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. “Don Lemon is just another person who obstructed worshipers, harassed them, intimidated them, and violated the sanctity of their sacred space,” Dhillon said. “He’s just one of many, and so he’s being treated the same. I don’t think he gets special treatment because he is cloaking himself in the garb of journalism.” Journalists should not break the law in pursuit of a story, Dhillon said. “I can’t imagine anybody who goes to church or temple or mosque regularly thinking that this is okay, because it’s just not,” she said. “So I would advise them to follow the law. If you’d like to cover something that happened inside the house of God, wait a respectful distance outside. Don’t put your mic in the face that people make them slip on ice and run for their lives.” Lemon met with organizers and activists before the church disruption. According to the DOJ’s indictment, Lemon was allegedly blocking the door of the facility, preventing congregants from exiting. Under Dhillon, the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ is currently investigating several attacks on houses of worship, including synagogues. Dhillon has obtained several convictions in such cases in the last year. “There was a recent shooting fatal attack on a Catholic church in Minnesota just last year, and so you have to be very sensitive to sensibilities of people in this current time and era, and also know what the law is,” Dhillon said. Trespassing, breaking windows, and committing other crimes in the name of reporting is a “big no-no,” Dhillon said. “I would advise them, similarly, under the same law, the [Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances] Act, don’t take your camera and video recording equipment into an abortion operating room and start filming over there,” she said. “It’s not appropriate, and it’s illegal. So read the law and understand the law.” In the Cities Church attack, agitators blocked stairs so “parents were unable to get to their children” at Sunday School, according to the indictment of some of the agitators. Congregants “were terrorized, our children were weeping, college students and young women were sobbing, it was impactful, and it will take time to work through,” according to the indictment. So far, nine people have been arrested for their involvement in the attack. “There were many additional people involved in the ones that we arrested, so we’re looking to find all of them,” Dhillon said. Tyler O’Neil contributed to this report. The post Don Lemon ‘Doesn’t Get Special Treatment’ for ‘Cloaking Himself in the Garb of Journalism,’ Dhillon Says appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The entertainment awards shows used to be wildly popular on TV before the audience shattered into a thousand pieces. When a celebrity decided to make a pompous political statement, it was memorable—like in 1973, when Marlon Brando sent an Indian activist named Sacheen Littlefeather to refuse his Oscar for “The Godfather” in protest. Brando wanted to highlight how Indians were badly portrayed by Hollywood—as he made an Italian mobster movie, which surely didn’t lead to any ethnic stereotyping whatsoever. For the last 10 years, awards shows have predictably erupted in melodramatic celebrity proclamations against the horrors of Donald Trump. This year, the leftists were already upset that there wasn’t enough celebrity shrieking at the Golden Globes. But they were delighted by the Grammy Awards. That Democrat rag The Washington Post tweeted this: “Politics are often treated like radioactive material on Grammy night, writes Post pop music critic Chris Richards. But on Sunday, something changed. The world outside had finally become too loud to ignore.” The headline underneath: “The biggest winner at the Grammys was free speech.” One of the things that Republicans hate about these shows is that the speech isn’t “free.” It’s a load of left-wing jeremiads without any dissent. That’s exactly why the Left loves it. Their speech represented “the world outside.” Wrong—it’s the celebrity bubble inside. Chris Richards should have been published on the editorial page. He claimed Renee Good and Alex Pretti were merely “witnesses in the streets,” not raging activists willing to kick out taillights and run over Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. Richards oozed: “If those assembled needed a hero, [rapper] Bad Bunny was it,” speaking with “blunt force intensity.” His signature line: “Before I say thanks to God, I’m going to say: ICE out. We’re not savages, we’re not animals, we’re not aliens. We are humans. And we are Americans.” Celebrities often speak in bumper-sticker phrases. This declaration is Fake News. No one is saying every immigrant is an “animal” or a “savage.” President Donald Trump has said that about murderous MS-13 gangsters, but then the media pretended he wasn’t at all specific. Obviously, illegal immigrants are not “Americans,” even if they stay for years. That word implies citizenship. But Richards was Bad Bunny’s bamboozled booster. These words were fabulous: “Deliberate, steadying, energizing, necessary. Finally. Moments as potent as this one should be the rule at the Grammys, not the exception.” There you have it. This show is not about the music. It’s about the activism. Every acceptance speech should be like a negative campaign advertisement. Then Richards fought with Laura Ingraham in absentia: “To the ‘shut up and sing’ crowd, I’ll ask one last time: Sing about what? Music is humanity transposed into sound. And as the Trump administration has reminded us so relentlessly in recent weeks, our humanity is increasingly under threat.” Once again, the Left cornered the market on humanity. Richards also loved the slogans of whisper-singing fashion nightmare Billie Eilish. She “spoke truth to power with the composure you’d expect from a 10-time Grammy winner.” What was her oration? “No one is illegal on stolen land,” she said, like every radical at a wokester hootenanny. Never deport anyone, for any reason. She added, “F— ICE.” So profound. Conservatives quickly underlined that 24-year-old Eilish owns a $3 million mansion on “stolen land” in Los Angeles, but in the celebrity code, one must never have to make sense. You are hailed for all in the verbal gestures (including the profanity). The celebrity audience vapidly applauds the sentiment, and who needs logic when your heart is “in the right place”? We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal.  The post Grab Your Grammy, Then Get Hammy About Illegal Immigrants appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Meanwhile, Business is Booming at the NY Times