The Sponge

woot

noreply@blogger.com (Steve) — Tue, 05 May 2009 01:50:00 +0000

party time

everyday

Jumping off the "Grey's" Bandwagon

noreply@blogger.com (Steve) — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 05:14:00 +0000

Patrick Dempsey, call your agent and get that movie career up and running. Multiple sources are alleging that T.R. Knight, who plays George on ABC's troubled hit, Grey's Anatomy, is looking to get out of his contract early, and apparently ABC and showrunner Shonda Rimes are letting him.

That's fine I guess, after all, people leave TV shows all the time. Yet something about this seems like many in the Grey's cast have smelled the fart in the room and are heading for the door before taking the blame.

CONTINUED

Most insider's bets were on Heroes being the one to take the more drastic downward spiral, but with Knight's exit, an already problematic year for Grey's has suddenly become much worse. First there was the Katherine Heigl Emmy drama, followed by the stir caused when Brooke Smith's lesbian Dr. Hahn was written out of the show. Now Knight's imminent exit comes on the heels on a massive backlash against the show after Heigl's Izzie started sleeping with Denny. Did we mention how Denny is dead? Doesn't Rimes know that these things only work on Ghost Whisperer?

While many might consider this career suicide, Knight may just be bold enogh to take the moves that we all know Heigl has been considering probably ever since she read the script that had her boinking the undead. In all honesty too, it's been a loooooong time since Knight's George has been used in a significant storyline that didn't border on ludicrous. Actually, it's been awhile since just about anybody on the show wasn't involved in a storyline that didn't border on ludicrous. The show overall has lost its luster and is now delving into ridiculous storylines to keep itself afloat, and it isn't working. Ratings are dramatically down again this year, and there's no signs of positivity in the future. Rimes claims that the Dizzie storyline will pay off, but will it really have a payoff so fantastic as to save this show?

Even worse, Knight and Heigl aren't the only ones whose talents are being squandered. The show is full of gifted actors who could be used to their true dramatic strengths in other places. Dempsey, Sandra Oh and Chandra Wilson have all received enough exposure to have their careers flourish elsewhere. My suggestion? Take the hint, and jump off the bandwagon now. Even being on Eli Stone would be better than this (and in case you weren't aware: Eli Stone was cancelled 3 weeks ago).

Signs of the Apocalypse: A Full House Revamp? Cut. It. Out.

noreply@blogger.com (Steve) — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 05:01:00 +0000

Cue the infamous hand gesture of Joey Gladstone. Candace Cameron Bure, who has long since gone into obscurity to hide from her brother's creepo attempts at fundamentalist Christian film success (or to pop out three kids and live in Florida with her Russian hockey player hubby - you decide), has reappeared from the depths of the J-List with new of the Apocalypse.

Actually, it's news that her former uncle (and resident stud) John Stamos is planning a revamp of Full House, which would have Bure and Sweetin reprise their roles as DJ and Stephanie Tanner.

So lemme get this straight. 90210 is only a middling success. Knight Rider will be lucky to finish the season and last year's Bionic Woman was rejected by the public faster than the titular hero's machine-operated limbs. So where is everyone getting this information that remaking shows from the 80's/early 90's? First Melrose Place, and now this? In a world of TV where the most "wholesome" television one can find may be Two and a Half Men, would a mushy Full House remake really survive? Screw the family morals and take a few pages from the lives of its stars. Have Joey royally pissing off Alanis Morissette, have Michelle be an Ugg wearing, chainsmoking waif with a massive sensitivity to light or food, and only have Bob Saget tell jokes like this:

Otherwise John Stamos, scratch the remake and just go on tour with the Beach Boys already.

And here is the rest of it.

Laugh and a Half Volume 1: Incredibad

noreply@blogger.com (Steve) — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 22:31:00 +0000

UPDATE: Yes, the buggers took it down. But you can watch Andy Samberg himself posted it on Youtube under the pseudonym for his band. Watch it at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pXfHLUlZf4. Enjoy!! Again!!

Andy Samberg's "SNL Digital Shorts" can be pretty hit or miss. But this one is definitely a humorous hit. Parodying the melody and video style of virtually every song ever featuring Timbaland, check out "Jizz in my Pants" below, and do it before NBC boots the video off Youtube. And yes, that really is Justin Timberlake as the janitor. Enjoy!

Grammy Nominations: Blessings, Bemusements and Blasphemies

noreply@blogger.com (Steve) — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 04:15:00 +0000

So the Grammy nominations were announced last night during the 1st annual Grammy Nominations Concert (the economy may suck, but we can still pay people by the bucketload to come perform during a pointless concert!). So with the final noms announced, as per usual, Grammy voters have served up a large heaping of the usual suspects (Coldplay and Kanye), big surprises (Adele!!), and even more surprising omissions (we're not gonna spoil it just yet). Check out our recap of all the big new from the final list of noms, after the jump!

No Surprise Here: As expected, Coldplay dominated the nominations this year, leading the pack with 7 nods, including ones for Album, Record and Song of the Year, making them the odds-on favourite to sweep the awards fest this February. Grammy gave Kanye West yet another ego boost with 6 nominations, yet left him out of the Big Three categories.

Big Surprise There: Alicia Keys, a big Grammy fave ever since her debut six years ago, only scored two nominations, none of which included her mega-selling As I Am or her single "No One", which dominated the singles charts last winter. Perhaps too much time has passed since the album's release, but considering who else got nominated, the Grammy voters are still leaving us with many head-scratching moments. Similarly, while Mariah Carey's latest was considered stronger by critics than Grammy darling The Emancipation of Mimi, Mimi herself was snubbed entirely.

Best New Who?: The category with the most glaring set of omissions is certainly Best Artist. While this category is often widely contested (remember when Lauryn Hill got nominated twice, once for the Fugees and once as a solo artist?), this year's slate of nominees is both surprising and confusing. While the list deserves props for nominating both Adele and Duffy for strong album work, how did the Jonas Bros. make the list? While it's admirable that a 15 year old writes their songs, as the same time, it's glaringly obvious that a 15 year old writes their songs. Plus, where on earth are the new artists who actually garnered critical and commercial success, like Katy Perry, Leona Lewis, Jordin Sparks, and Sara Bareilles? Since all four scored multiple nods in other categories, their omission from the New Artist category is both obvious and idiotic (especially Perry's).

Where They Got It Right: Overall however, it was nice to see that Grammy voters gave nods to several artists who were rightfully deserving. While not surprising that voters didn't go head over heels for the Gnarls Barkley's less-successful follow-up album, it was great to see "Going On" get a nod. Likewise, seeing so many nods for Kings of Leon in the rock categories, as well as some for My Morning Jacket is encouraging for their futures. In the dance categories, Grammy voters handed nominations to Kylie Minogue, Cyndi Lauper, Sam Sparro, and Robyn(!) and rightfully so.

What They Still Got Wrong: This isn't just the gay in me talking, but only two nominations for Madonna? The woman consistently churns out the most critically and commercially acclaimed pop/dance records of anyone in the industry, and yet always seems to fail reaching the major categories. While her Madgesty is renowned for being ahead of the times, it seems Grammy always needs extra time to catch up.

What are your thoughts? Any glaring omissions from the list that anger you? Any inclusions that made you squeal with joy? Check out the full list of nominees at http://grammy.com/, and comment below!!

Thanks, Harvey

noreply@blogger.com (Steve) — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 20:41:00 +0000

The frenzy regarding Harvey Milk at this moment is similar to a perfect storm, with multiple elements coming together to celebrate the slain first openly gay man elected to public office. The Gus Van Sant film Milk, was released yesterday to nearly unanimous rave reviews for the film itself, as well as the performances of Sean Penn (as Milk) and James Franco (as his lover Scott Smith). Chances at a slew of awards nominations for the film now seems as solid as Oscar gold.

The second part comes from the mass protests in the wake of the passing of Proposition 8 in California. The events are eerily similar to those featured in the film regarding Milk's crusade against Proposition 6 (which would have banned gays from becoming teachers). Many critics who have seen the film have called the similar events a wake-up call to today's society.

Yet the third part of this perfect media storm comes in the form of today's date. It may be a slow day for new in North America, with the entire U.S. celebrating Thanksgiving, but it's also an important day in history. 30 years ago today, Harvey Milk was assassinated by his former coworker, Dan White. During his time as a politician, Harvey Milk was unabashedly out, something that may seem more normal in today's society, but was a cultural taboo in the 1970's. His courage to fight for the rights of the gay community gave the gay movement a face, and unfortunately, a martyr. While the movement may have started nearly a decade earlier with the Stonewall riots, it was Milk's death that acted as a catalyst for many in the LGBT community to take action. As a result, many people including myself, have civil rights that we may not have been granted otherwise, and also have to courage to fight for those we still don't have. So thanks Harvey. We may have come a long way since then, but it wouldn't have even started without you.

Signs of the Apocalypse? We Have a Winner

noreply@blogger.com (Steve) — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 04:05:00 +0000

And it wasn't even one we suggested in the first place:

We Need a New Sign of the Apocalypse

noreply@blogger.com (Steve) — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 17:48:00 +0000

While it's been streaming online for a few days new at MySpace, GunsN'Roses Chinese Democracy will be officially released tomorrow at Best Buy. After 15 years of ridiculously tedious development, false starts, and ludicrous promises being made by Axl Rose, the moment that nobody thought would come finally has.

What this means, is that we pop culture freaks need to find a new Sign of the Apocalypse. Confused? What this means is that we need a new metaphor for something that may never happen, kinda like "I'll buy silver hotpants when hell freezes over", or "I'll watch CSI: Miami when Chinese Democracy gets released". Check out some of our new Signs of the Apocalypse, after the jump!

1. When Dr. Dre finally releases Detox

2. When Eminem has a different hair colour aside from bleach blond

3. When they stop making Saw movies.

4. When NBC stops remaking bad 80's shows.

5. When Lauryn Hill gets off the crazy pills.

6. When the Olsen twins expand their diet beyond Starbucks and cigarettes.

7. When Thomas Harris stops writing novels to be made directly into Hannibal Lecter movies.

8. When a celebrity names their child "Emily", "James", or "Matthew".

9. When Jerry Bruckheimer produced an emotionally charged, independent, character driven drama.

10. Three words: Amy Winehouse Sober.

It's OK to Admit You're Excited for 'Star Trek'

noreply@blogger.com (Steve) — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 18:24:00 +0000

For those of you who have gone to see Quantum of Solace already, you probably left the theatre feeling torn. No, not about the movie itself (well maybe that too, more on that at a later date), but about the trailer you most likely saw before the film. Not Watchmen, or Harry Potter, or The Day the Earth Stood Still. No, none of those made you feel as conflicted as the way you did while you saw thre trailer for J.J. Abrams' upcoming reboot of Star Trek.

After all, aren't Trekkies the only people who get excited for Star Trek? People who worship at the feet of Levar Burton for something other than Reading Rainbow? People who dress up as Romulans every year and travel thousands of miles to attend national conventions? People who have spent their free time over the years, learning to speak Klingon, a language that isn't even real?

It's okay, you're not alone. You can admit it. Like me, you're excited for the new Star Trek.

A list of reasons why it's okay to admit it, as well as the new trailer, after the jump!

Reasons You Can Admit You're Excited For Star Trek

1. J.J. Abrams is King Shit: Everything the man touches turns to gold. Alias, Lost, and Fringe have all become large great successes largely because his name was attached to it. The last time Tom Cruise actually looked cool was because Abrams made him that way in Mission: Impossible III. Even his the stuff that isn't so amazing (Cloverfield) peaks enough interest with its unique concept ideas. If there's anyone who can take this franchise in a bold new direction and succeed, it's J.J.

2. Everything Old is New Again: With Hollywood continually going from creatively bankrupt to in overdraft, remakes and franchise reboots have become standard procedure. The Dark Knight, the second in Warner Bros.' Batman reboot, will finish as the top-grossing (and one of the best) films of the year. James Bond is currently seeing similar success, and The Day The Earth Stood Still is aiming for it in a month's time. Audiences are embracing old faves that have successfully taken on adding relevant messages about today in their films. Abrams recently noted his hope that Barack Obama would win the election, because the idea of "hope, change, and a peaceful world" is an important message of the Star Trek universe. It would be worth it to see a film with an optimistic look at the future for once.

3. Yay Cool Cast: Many Trekkies have griped about Chris Pine as the new Kirk, but the trailer left me with no complaints (and his easiness on the eyes never hurts). Furthermore, fans of Heroes know already that Zachary Quinto as Spock is dead-on. Likewise with the supporting cast. Zoe Saldana, John Cho and Simon Pegg as Uhura, Sulu, and Scotty are all inspired choices to embody iconic characters, both to fans and newbies. Plus, Eric Bana looks sufficiently creepy as the head baddie, Nero.

4. Exciting Backstory: One of the things that both Batman and the Bond franchises have succeeded at is telling the story of how the protagonists came to be. This is something that has neer been told on him in the Star Trek universe either. This will hopefully add a new element that will help embrace newbies to the characters (myself included). Plus, the trailer's opening chase sequence with a young Kirk was a riveting example of classic Abrams action to draw in non-fans.

5. Nothing To Lose: Because no matter what, it can't suck the bag harder than the new Star Wars movies.

Not swayed yet? Check out the trailer here and see for yourself. And then proceed to come out about your Star Trek excitedness.

Tyra Banks Gives Away Sex-Change On Her Talk Show

noreply@blogger.com (Steve) — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 03:47:00 +0000

Isis, the transgender model from the most recent season of America's Next Top Model, was given a sex reassignment surgery by Oprah-in-training herself on the Tyra Banks Show yesterday. After suffering from discrimination from her competitors on the show, Tyra has the contestant on her show, and surprised the model with the announcement.

Because no matter how many times you go see Oprah, she's never gonna give away a sex change dcuring her Favorite Things.

Does Economic Crisis = Increased Photoshopping?

noreply@blogger.com (Steve) — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 02:46:00 +0000

So I got my new Entertainment Weekly in the mail last week, as per usual. It arrived a little later than normal though, so it was a few minutes before I noticed something odd about the come-hither looks of Robert Pattinson and Kristen Stewart (of the upcoming Twilight) on the cover. Mostly it was that somebody had a Photoshopping spree on their faces. Normal, right? Not usually for Entertainment Weekly. While the Time Warner-produced weekly mag constantly has big stars gracing its cover, it's normally more the magazine to criticize excessive airbrushing and photo editing then actually use it.

This particular incident came a week after I grabbed my EW from the mail and was taken aback at the Adobe-assisted lack of facial definition on James Bond himself, Daniel Craig. In fact, ever since my favourite magazine's reformatting this summer, I've keenly noticed that the photoshop factor has had its ante upped.

What could be the root of this?

CONTINUED

There could be many things that it could be blamed on. It could be that airbrushing helps to give the magazine appeal to the Adderall generation. It could be that many celebs have become so vain as to expect it. Yet could it actually be another one of the heinous side effects of the bend-over-and-take-it that the U.S. economy is currently undergoing? In a word, yes.

One of the industries that has taken quite a beating during this fall's economic tailspin has been the publishing industry. Cutbacks have happened at all major U.S. newspapers. Men's Vogue, O at Home and Radar Magazine all have folded within the past month, and Vanity Fair has just announced that it has taken a severe financial beating in advertising dollars. During economic crisis, the first things that get thrown out the proverbial window are luxuries. Nights out for dinner, vacations, $6 coffees at Starbucks, and yes, magazine subscription renewals.

Futhermore, many people aren't renewing subscriptions anymore because they don't need to. Technology has finally, truly come to the point where the paper printed word has become (sadly) almost obsolete. People don't just have the ability to check the news from their computers anymore, but the widespread growth of wireless Internet access and mobile devices now allow people to read the news from their laptop with an Internet stick, or from their iPhone. The advent of web 2.0 has made it that many people are reporting on the news themselves (I also realize the irony of writing this thing on magazines with the very medium that is killing it).

Yet does all of this really mean that airbrushing is done as a magazine's response to draw in readers during economic crisis? Maybe not, but here's a few more tidbits of information. Coincidentally, Barco Imaging (the original computer photoshopper) was first introduced right after the Black Tuesday on the stock market in 1987. Adobe introduced Photoshop during the economic recession in the early 1990's. Coincidence? Maybe so, but it was during those times that magazine publishers first started using them to alter images (Remember the Time controversy regarding its cover of OJ Simpson in 1994? Thanks Adobe).

What's even more bizarre is how unnecessary the photoshopping was for two such young, attractive stars on EW's cover. Kristen Stewart is 18 and pretty easy even on my gay eyes. And Robert Pattinson has already caused a frenzy of attention before the movie has even opened. If this is what is going to happen to the youth, what would this mean if the cover were to feature Cloris Leachman?

In the end, I'd rather have the magazine actually show up still every week than have it not happen at all. So if this is what needs to happen in order for my favourite magazine to still exist at all, then that's fine by me. Just know, EW, that your faithful readers couldn't care less how attractive the people are on the cover. Your magazine has never been about eye candy. Stick to the smart articles and leave the sexy to Maxim and Cosmo.

Who know though, maybe I'm wrong about all of this and all that's happen is they hired a new staff photoshopper. And he's not very good at his job.

I Want a Dance Biscuit

noreply@blogger.com (Steve) — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:02:00 +0000

Paul Rudd and Beyonce were the hosts of Saturday Night Live this past weekend. However, the big surprise was the appearance of Justin Timberlake, who had to back out of his scheduled hosting gig, but was kind enough to stick around for a few skits. The best of the bunch? This riff on Beyonce's "Single Ladies" video, with Timberlake as one of her backup dancers. Watch below and enjoy!!

Watching the Watchmen

noreply@blogger.com (Steve) — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 03:35:00 +0000

The new Watchmen trailer, scheduled to be released with Quantum of Solace tomorrow, has been unveiled over at Yahoo Movies.

The film, loooooong in the making, is scheduled to be released March 6, 2009 (as long as Fox doesn't succeed in its attempt to block the film's release over a dispute with Warner Bros.). The trailer features plenty of eye candy for fans of the graphic novel.

Alright, just stop wasting time already and watch it below!!

FunnyorDie is Awesome

noreply@blogger.com (Steve) — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 21:02:00 +0000

Thanks to the Upright Citizens Brigade for bringing this to FunnyorDie.com. an you imagine if this actually happened? Larry King would be soooooo screwed. Watch below and have a laugh.

See more funny videos at Funny or Die

Absorb This: Hilton and Solondz Weirdest. Combo. Ever.

noreply@blogger.com (Steve) — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 19:45:00 +0000

In what may be the most bizarre movie news I've heard all year, Paris Hilton is getting another chance at acting credability. And this time, someone who actually has some film cred is giving it to her. That would be Todd Solondz. If you've never heard of him before, Solondz directed the critically acclaimed Happiness and Welcome to the Dollhouse, two of the most acclaimed films of the 90's.

The yet-to-be-titled film is said to be a semi-sequel to Happiness, which circled around a various neighbours, including a pedophile. The original won numerous awards, including the International Critic's Prize at Cannes. The sequel will center around a family dealing with the challenges of living during wartime. No word as of yet on what Hilton's role will be.

Whatever the role is, this is certainly a step up from National Lampoon videos of Hilton. Solondz's films have been acclaimed for their ark satire on American society, and often include controversial subjects such as rape, pedophilia and abortion. Whatever the role may be, it certainly gives Hilton an opportunity beyond screaming her face off in horror films. The move seems similar to that of Lindsay Lohan a few years ago, when she did a stint of indie films in order to gain some acting credibility to overshadow her tabloid-centric personal life. While this seems to be Hilton's attempt at doing the same thing, it didn't exactly pan out for Lohan, so we'll see how this goes for her socialite cohort.

And Now On a Lighter Note...

noreply@blogger.com (Steve) — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 05:41:00 +0000

After getting a tad too serious with the previous post, I thought I'd lighten things up around here. And what better way to do that than by watching a live feed of an entire playpen full of puppies?!?!?!?!?!?

Enjoy!!!

One Step Forward, Another Step Back

noreply@blogger.com (Steve) — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 01:06:00 +0000

Tuesday was a great day to be an American. After eight years being spent lead by a corrupt administration headed by a Commander in Chief who had become more of a bumbling sitcom character than an international leader, Americans finally got things right by electing Barack Obama. Finally, there was a U.S. election that wasn't officially decided weeks later in Florida. Finally, a leader who was elected whom the people can actually (hopefully) count on to follow through on the promises of change and hope. Finally, as Sherri Shepard from The View (who, of all people, had me close to tears yesterday) put it, African-Americans everywhere can tell their children that they truly can be anything they want to be in this world. Like I said, it was a truly great day to be an American.

Unless you're gay and living in California. In that case, you may have just had your marriage turned invalid.

CONTINUE READING AFTER THE JUMP

Overall, it hasn't exactly been a great week for the gays. First, on Monday Grey's Anatomy's Brooke Smith was fired from the show after ABC execs allegedly took a disliking to her lesbian character. While it seems unlikely that the normally gay-friendly network (home of gay faves such as Ugly Betty and Brothers and Sisters) would do such a thing, the fact that Greys' own Patrick Demspey admitted on Ellen yesterday that ABC tried to script his reaction to the firing for the show, something smells fishy (no lesbian pun intended).

Then Tuesday night arrives, and it turns out that not only California's Proposition 8 has passed (thus allowing a Constitutional amendment that would define marriage in Cali as between a man and a woman), but similar, rights-stripping ballot measures have also passed in Arizona, Florida and Arkansas. The only thing that hasn't made the whole week a total loss for Team Gay is that Lance Bass is still on Dancing with the Stars (and you know it's been a bad week when...)

What this means is that the Constitutional amendment will go forward for now, with lots more protesting along the way from both sides. In the meantime, while government officials has stated that the 18,000 marriages already conducted in Cali since it became legal in May will stay valid, it's left many questioning where the LGBT community stands. Ellen DeGeneres recently issued this statement, saying: "This morning, when it was clear that Proposition 8 had passed in California, I can't explain the feeling I had. I was saddened beyond belief. Here we just had a giant step towards equality and then on the very next day, we took a giant step away. I believe one day a 'ban on gay marriage' will sound totally ridiculous. In the meantime, I will continue to speak out for equality for all of us,".

So if it sounds so ridiculous, how did this happen, especially in arguably the most liberally-minded state in America? Apparently, the strength of countless celebrities, Barack Obama and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger speaking out against Prop 8 were all not enough against the power of the religious right. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints moved members from Utah to California, and between them and various other groups, over $30 million was poured into ensuring a Yes on Prop 8. What looked like a formidable victory against the Proposition a few months ago, quickly escalated into a heated war between both sides. While celebrities such as Ellen, Brad Pitt and Steven Spielberg made donations to help strike down 8, it was apparently futile against the Mormon church as well as the donations of many power-brokers from Newport Beach.

So now, gay Californians are back where they were back in April, only this time with the added disappointment of having been given their rights, and then having them taken away. While the fight regarding Prop 8 continues to wage on, I must ask, had the ballot measure actually failed, would this have made the LGBT community any more equal? Would its opponents not be doing what gay Californians are doing now, protesting and filing lawsuits? It just shows that while the law may be changed, the ideology of the United States can only be changed by continuing to do what we, like so many minorities, have done over the years: educate and inform to promote change for equal rights around the world. Maybe then everyone can be told they can be whatever they want when they grow up.

Well They Just Lost it For You Too, Carrie

noreply@blogger.com (Steve) — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 01:39:00 +0000

So Carrie Underwood said yesterday that she chooses not to endorse specific political candidates, stating: "There is someone I do support, but I don't support publicly. I lose all respect for celebrities when they back a candidate." (Which is a much more PR-friendly way of saying "I'm a closet Republican").

So while it's all fine and dandy that Carrie chooses not to disclose which candidate she supports, at the same time, she's taken a stab at almost every notable celebrity in America as well. People such as Oprah, Jennifer Aniston, Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt, Will Smith, Jay-Z, Beyonce, and more (also known as a group of celebrities with much more power than an American Idol country crooner). Yet what do all of these dissed celebrities also have in common? The fact that while they have all endorsed a candidate, at the same time, they have also greatly encouraged that people vote, no matter for what party they choose. I've had my eye on these PSA's and ads, encouraging people of all ages to vote, and Carrie doesn't appear in any of them.

So while Ms. Underwood may believe that these fellow entertainers are falsely influencing people to vote for them with their endorsements, at the same time, what they're encouraging just as strongly is a true democratic process by telling people to vote, no matter for whom they choose to do so. Yes, an endorsement from Oprah is big, but her encouraging true democracy is even bigger.

Furthermore, Ms. Underwood states "Music is where you go to get away from all the BS. Whether it's from politics or just the world around you, music should be an escape." While this is true, has the girl never stepped outside of Nashville? Has she never listened to any songs by U2, Bruce Springsteen, Greenday, Madonna or Bob Dylan? Some of the best music ever created has been boldly political, and the world is all the better for it. Take away the politics from music, and all we have is "Before He Cheats".

So Carrie, you can keep your endorsement to yourself. That's great, and at least you've informed yourself on the process enough to have an opinion and know who you want to support. Just don't expect the Big O to have you on her show next time you want to promote an album.

Gee, maybe that song "So Small" was about her brain.

They Couldn't Be That Stupid, Could They?

noreply@blogger.com (Steve) — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 16:46:00 +0000

So today is (finally) the big day in the U.S. That's right, the day has finally come where people will choose between Barack Obama and John McCain. It's now become heavily favoured that after 8 years of idiotic GOP bumbling, Americans are going to vote in Obama over McCain. Yay!!! If Obama wins, that's great, because the U.S. could use a change in opinions and views after years of Republicans screwing up various things. Such as starting a fake war. Screwing the economy. Screwing the environment. Just to name a few. So after so desperately wanting change for the past year, could Americans really be so stupid to give it to the party that won't be that change?

While it seems unlikely, hit after the jump to see some other things done by Americans that were colossally stupid.

Idiotic Things We Have Americans To Thank For:

-The McRib

-Nipples on the Batsuit

-Ann Coulter

-Bill O'Reilly

-Lady Gaga

-Paris Hilton's singing career

-The cancellation of Arrested Development

-Whoever the turd was who decided it would be a good idea for teachers to bring guns to school

-The unexplained famousness of the Olsen Twins

-Fred Phelps

-Allowing Shia LaBeouf to grow out his facial hair

-This.

-This.

-And definitely this.

So tonight, if by some ridiculous measure John McCain wins, just remember, sometimes Americans make stupid decisions. That's why According to Jim is still on the air.

A Message to Marvel Studios

noreply@blogger.com (Steve) — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 01:29:00 +0000

Dear Marvel Studios,

First off, I just want to say that I'm a big fan of you guys. Big fan. Huge, if you will. Even as a lifelong diehard Batman fan, my bias between the two big comics giants has always been with you guys. Since my childhood a large part of my (and my parent's) disposable income has been spent on action figures, comic books, lining up for your films, buying the special-edition DVD's, even the video games. Yes, the X-Men sucked me in at an early age, and my addiction to all things Marvel happily spread to the Fantastic Four, Hulk, Iron Man, and so on as a result.

When news broke a few years ago that you would be starting your own film studio, after the successes of the X-Men and Spiderman franchises, I was jazzed. After all, what this meant was that the superhero movie boom, something that I had happily blown more than a few dollars on, would continue for some time to come. So fast-forward from 2005 to now, and I've spent quite a few moments in 2008 noticing a few things regarding you, Marvel Studios, and your stars. Namely that you might be totally screwing the pooch.

CONTINUED HERE

The main reason I started thinking about this, was because of this new report today of why Terrence Howard got the boot from Iron Man 2, and the reason for it wasn't just because of Howard's reported difficulty onset, but because of salary issues. To sum it up, you replaced Howard with Don Cheadle because Howard refused a reduced salary from what he received in the first film.

This made me recall earlier in the year, when Edward Norton refused to do any press for The Incredible Hulk, after spending months feuding with your studio heads over the content of the film (Norton wanted more character development for Bruce Banner, you guys wanted more action. You won out in the end, but Norton's cut scenes are on the DVD). While Hulk made back its budget, it didn't exactly turn out to be The Dark Knight, did it? Let's face it, it hardly even turned out to be Fantastic Four.

So essentially, you've independently released two movies, with a few more on their way, ad we're already getting word from multiple sides saying that you're not working so well with your stars. Yes, those crazy, egotistical actors. They get paid to much, they show up late, party too hard, and cause trouble onset like only an over-entitled diva could. But guess what? They're also a big reason that a movie can tip the line between Spiderman and Daredevil. It's their talent.

People go to see superhero movies because they want to see superheroes do superhero things in superhero ways. That includes lots of crazy good guys and bad guys with lots of crazy powers and lots of crazy scenarios in grand places (insert Arctic/Golden Gate Bridge/Afghanistan/ Brazilian Jungle here). But what elevates a superhero movie from good (or mediocre) to great, is always an actor bringing a legendary superhero to life. Heath Ledger's pretty much a lock on an Oscar nod because he made the Joker the iconic villain of the year. Hugh Jackman became a star by seamlessly embodying Wolverine in the X-Men films. You guys watched Robert Downey Jr. revive his career this year in your own Iron Man, and propel it into the 2nd biggest movie of the year ('twas not that fancy suit that kept bringing everyone back for a second round of Tony Stark).

There are lots of talented people essential to making a great film, however, the majority of the moviegoing public doesn't care about anyone else but who they see on screen. That's who they connect to. Not only that, but the talent that actors such as Norton and Howard bring to these projects is a rare find in mass commercial fare.

So now you guys are going to continue to move forward, but at what cost? Couldn't an extra ten minutes of Norton's suggested character development actually saved the relationship with the actor, and thus save any future sequels from having Bruce Banner be played by three actors in as many movies? And it's not like Terrence Howard is Johnny Depp and costs $30 million. Maybe you could have just paid him the same amount as the first film and kept him happy, especially since you were probably planning on keeping him around to pimp out a War Machine movie in the next few years?

I only say this because I have concern for you, Marvel Studios. Actors talk to each other, and if you keep on shitting the bed with the ones you work with, maybe eventually most of the good ones won't want to work with you anymore. And that could be an issue. After all, Iron Man was good, but DC totally stole your thunder with The Dark Knight this summer, and now they plan on rolling out all of their big characters too. So learn to play nice, Marvel Studios. Because if Jessica Alba is going to continue being in your movies, I'm lining up for Wonder Woman.

Things Wrong with a Jackson 5 Reunion Tour

noreply@blogger.com (Steve) — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 04:45:00 +0000

So Jermaine Jackson claimed yesterday to The New York Times, that a reunion of the Jackson 5, with Michael, and sister Janet even in tow. As much as I'd love for the idea of a Jackson 5 reunion tour to become a reality (as much for the songs as for the grand hot mess of keeping all of the Jacksons together in the same place for months on end), I just don't see it happening, and probably for the better.

Here's a list of reasons why the Jackson 5 Reunion Tour should not, and most likely will not, happen:

1. Can even Michael hit those high notes on "I'll Be There" anymore?

2. Didn't the Jacksons start some sort of family rule a few years back banning Tito from doing anything that requires opening his mouth? (wait, maybe that was LaToya...)

3. Michael the child singing school-age come-ons in "ABC"=cute. Adult Michael singing school-age come-ons in "ABC"=creepo.

4. Apparently Janet is going to open for the rest of the Jackson 5. Isn't she the most successful out of all of them now? Shouldn't they be opening for her? Ms. Jackson could probably take her nipple shield on a tour of conservative Baptist churches and still pull in bigger crowds than Tito and Co.

5. Since when did the New York Times actually decide to listen to Jermaine Jackson?

6. What do you mean the Randy they refer to isn't the guy from American Idol?

Regardless of what Jermaine may say, look for this one to probably get denied by Michael very soon. The whole situation looks unlikely, especially since Janet has had trouble managing her own tour recently. But if you want to catch a Jackson on tour, Janet and her vertigo are probably the best bet you'll find for awhile yet, regardless of what Jermaine says to bring attention to a failed musical dynasty.

How Procedurals are Killing Soap Opera Drama

noreply@blogger.com (Steve) — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 05:44:00 +0000

So the big story of this year's TV season has nothing to do with a particular Californian zipcode (90210). It doesn't have anything to do with paranormal science, either (Fringe). And for the second season in a row, it still doesn't have anything to do with box-store employees with CIA on the brain (Chuck).

Nope, this season's breakout TV hit is procedural show The Mentalist, on CBS starring Simon Baker. The show has broken from the pack to become the only bona fide top ten hit of the year. The show, which follows Baker's faux-psychic Patrick Jane as he solves serious crimes for the California Bureau of Investigation. Yet one of the crimes that Jane should be investigating, is how procedural dramas, and their success, are slowly killing the strength of the soap-opera based drama. Check out why, after the jump!

Procedural dramas, in their modern form, came to rise with the enduring popularity of Law and Order, which started nearly 20 years ago on NBC. That show soon turned into a franchise, with two others spawning and gaining their own success. Yet the procedural crown is currently held by The Mentalist's network, CBS. The network also airs the three CSI franchises, Cold Case, Criminal Minds, NCIS, and Without a Trace. So essentially, CBS has enough procedural dramas to run at least one each night of the week. While one may assume that people would get tired of watching the same format of crime-based show every day, this seems to not be the case: CBS has won every week of the fall primetime season thus far. As we head into November sweeps, everything is very much coming up CBS.

So, since CBS seems to have divested from everything that isn't a procedural drama, what does this mean for all of the more traditional soap-opera dramas airing on the other networks? They're falling short by any and all standards. Returning shows Grey's Anatomy and Desperate Housewives have seen ratings dip again this year. Meanwhile, returning sophomore soaps have taken a significant hit: Dirty Sexy Money, Private Practice, Lipstick Jungle, and Heroes are all down anywhere from 15-30%. All of this has led to a creative tailspin in the drama departments at all the major networks. While returning shows are failing to live up to expectations, new shows aren't living up to the hype either. While Fringe, 90210, and Knight Rider have all received full season orders, none of them haven proven to be the ratings titans their networks had hoped.

Unfortunately, this isn't just a case of one procedural show outshining all the other dramas. New serial dramas have failed in the consequent years since 24 and Lost reinvented the genre. Likewise, the soap opera genre has failed to generate a significant hit since Desperate Housewives began in 2004. So what's the issue causing the big difference in ratings between these genres of one-hour shows?

People just can't commit anymore. Procedural shows such as The Mentalist, Law and Order and CSI excel at emphasizing the majority of each episode on the actual story itself, instead of the development of the characters. This means that viewers get more hooked on the format of the cases than the actual characters investigating them. It also means that people can tune into CSI after missing half the season, and still be able to catch up on what's going on in a heartbeat. There's no dedication required, except to the hourlong story being presented at that time. It's a strong feature that has allowed shows such as the original Law and Order to undergo numerous cast changes over the years without missing a beat.

The idea of becoming dedicated to a show is daunting. I myself am I rabid Lost fan, yet I will be the first to admit that it takes a lot of dedication to wrap your head around the show, to understand its ongoing mythology and character development. While the payoff is often an emotional whallop that CSI: NY could only ever dream of delivering, at the same time, that dedication means watching Every. Single. Episode. I`ve missed an episode halfway through a season of 24 and all had been lost (no pun intended). To devote that time and have it not pay off is not only frustrating, but disheartening.

What this means though, isn`t the death of the soap-opera or serial drama. It just means you may have to call your cable provider. Cable networks such as HBO, Showtime, FX and now AMC (home of the recent Emmy-winning Mad Men) have all excelled at developing character-driven dramas, and have incidentally reaped the awards (siphoned viewership from the major networks) as a result. So maybe what the future of television isn`t one without serial dramas, you may just need to shell out a few extra bucks to sift through the crime dramas in order to get to some real character development.

In the meantime though, you the viewer shouldn`t be afraid to get addicted to a TV show, let alone one that doesn`t involve an open-and-shut quadruple-homicide-mutilation-cold-case-missing-person-navy crime each week. In an age where PVR`s and DVD seasons have become commonplace, even if you don`t have time to sit down for appointment TV each week, you now have the convenience of finding the time. So go find some, as well as a great show that won`t waste it.

CW Plans Melrose PLace Reboot, Starts Search for Thomas Calabro

noreply@blogger.com (Steve) — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 04:39:00 +0000

Well, if Desperate Housewives ever goes in the shitter, at least Doug Savant knows what his backup plan is. After the success of 90210 at the CW, the network is planning on continuing their trend of making their primetime schedule look like an episode of I Love The 90's, by planning a reboot of Melrose Place.

While 90210 hasn't been the ratings juggernaut that the CW is hoping it would be, it has still become a clear success on Tuesday nights. No doubt the CW is probably hoping to bring back a few members of the old cast (I'm a big proponent of putting Heather Locklear in just about anything). No further news on the development, but former series creator Darren Star may be on board.

The original Melrose was a semi-spinoff of the original Beverly Hills 90210 back in 1992. The show focused on twenty-somethings living in the same apartment complex in Los Angeles. The show often embraced far more soap-opera-esque storylines and had no fear of camp. Throughout the show's seven year history, characters faced multiple personalities, murders, bombings and more double-crosses than one could count. If the CW could embrace some of the camp from the original, then perhaps this could make a welcome addition to the CW's schedule.

However, if the CW starts a reboot of The X-Files, they're to be taken to task for their FOX circa 1993 identity crisis.

To check out of Melrose's more significantly campy moments, when resident uber-loon Kimberly (Desperate's Marcia Cross), sets of a bomb, play the clip below:

Where is the Trailer for 'The Road'?

noreply@blogger.com (Steve) — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 18:53:00 +0000

Easily one of my top five movies to see this fall (the others being Quantum of Solace, Australia, Defiance, and Milk), the adaptation of Cormac McCarthy's The Road, is slated to be released on November 14th. Yet aside from a few production stills, we have yet to see any live footage of the film, let alone a teaser or a full trailer. So what's the deal? Find out what may be going on, after the jump!

To say that the film version of The Road is highly anticipated would be an understatement. McCarthy's book was critically hailed upon its release, winning the Pulitzer Prize and becoming an Oprah's Book Club selection. The film, directed by John Hillcoat and starring Viggo Mortensen and Charlize Theron, has been the subject of immense Oscar buzz since it started filming, due to its November release, and its cast of awards-friendly stars (Robert Duvall has a small role as well).

So with a film that many are expecting to be in the Best Picture final five come February, one would assume that distributor The Weinstein Co. would be willing to play that buzz game they're so good at, and start to build the hype, right?

Apparently not. With less than a month to go, there's been little to no advance word on The Road. The Weinstein Co. hasn't even mentioned a date when a trailer may be released. What's more, the film hasn't screened at any film festivals thus far either. This is a cause for concern, considering another Oscar contender, Baz Luhrmann's Nicole Kidman-Hugh Jackman epic, Australia, is being released on the same day, and could very well walk away with all the hype.

Dave Karger from Entertainment Weekly, believes that the film may be pushed back until 2009, because the Weinstein Co. seems to want to put its full Oscar push behind Stephen Daldry's The Reader, starring Kate Winslet. While it seems unlikely that a company would push back such a strong Oscar contender, the Weinsteins have been known to do such things in the past, which means that sadly, we may have to wait even longer for this epic father-son journey to be told onscreen.

With a month left to go, do you think we'll see The Road in theatres this fall? Are there any other films that you're wondering why they've gone off the radar? Post below!

It Doesn't Get Any More Creepo Than: Sarah Palin on 'SNL'

noreply@blogger.com (Steve) — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 14:44:00 +0000

Things are about to take a turn for the bizarro tonight on Saturday Night Live. Alaska Governor and VP Candidate Sarah Palin, the real Sarah Palin, will be appearing tonight on SNL, in some capacity. To make things extra political, Josh Brolin, who stars in Oliver's Stone's newly released W., is the guest host tonight. Now of course, guest hosts and politicians appearing on SNL is nothing creepo. But the possibility of having Tina Fey appear as her dead-on Sarah Palin impersonation, possibly in the same scene as the real thing, is enough life-imitates-art-imitates-life to make my head explode. This could be even more bizarro than when Superman visited Bizarro world and met Bizarro Superman. So creepo!

My greatest wish? That they bring back Will Ferrell as Alex Trebek, and have a Celebrity Jeopardy skit with Brolin as George W., contending against both the real and fake Palins. Oh the hilarity that could ensue!!! Especially if they bring on Darrell Hammond to play Sean Connery again, just to whump some Scottish sense into all three.

Saturday Night Live will air live from New York, as always, tonight at 11;30pm on NBC.