Yo, new 90210 spinoff photo!
(Credit: People.com)
There’s only one minority, but they trick you into thinking it’s a diverse cast by putting him in the middle.
I’m actually pretty excited about this. I’m hoping it’ll replace the mediocre Gossip Girl as my go-to teen drama (see previous post) and I loved the over-the-top intrigues of Veronica Mars– VM creator Rob Thomas is behind this spinoff. And I miss Lucille Bluth.
Gossip Girl and I have a weird relationship. I very rarely watch the show, yet I follow all the commentary and recaps religiously. The few times I have seen the show I found it kind of boring, like Friday Night Lights minus the sincerity or The O.C. minus the humor. The coverage of the show, on the other hand, is often funny and insightful, and can be digested in about ten minutes, or over the course of a long work day two sentences at a time. Plus, the hard work of formulating an opinion is already done for me. It’s not difficult to see why, given the choice, I’d rather track it via blog.
(Via Radar)
But why follow it at all? The simple answer is that I have a hole in my life that can only be filled by trashy primetime soaps. Gravity and nuance are nice and all, but tend to take away from the delights of harsh judgment and unadulterated hatred. Friday Night Lights‘ Lyla Garrity slept with her paralyzed boyfriend’s best friend, for God’s sake, and I couldn’t even manage a proper “Oh no she didn’t!” because the writers thoughtfully made her a sympathetic, well-rounded character. Whereas when Serena van der Woodsen slept with her best friend’s boyfriend, I felt perfectly fine deeming her a vile, backstabbing bitch. Hell, when Marissa Cooper died in a fiery crash on The O.C., I danced on her imaginary grave without an ounce of guilt. After a long, hard day of trying to be a good person, there’s something to be said for that kind of catharsis.
Edit– spoilers for FNL and GG: Also, dudes, Serena’s idea of killing a guy is giving him a line of coke and then calling 911 when he ODs? Even the normally restrained FNL had Landry actually bludgeon the guy in self defense and toss the body into the river. Totally lame, Gossip Girl! If you’re gonna go that route, at least embrace the excess, hmm?
A Smithsonian article wonders what it is about New Yorkers that gives them (or “us”– I’ve been here for almost two years) the reputation of rudeness. A native New Yorker herself, she believes it is because New Yorkers “are more familiar”– they have no qualms about chatting you up.
Really? Because I’ve actually found the opposite to be true. As a visitor, and now as a citizen, I’ve always thought New Yorkers were perceived as rude because they are really, really good at ignoring shit. They have to be, to deal with constant crowding, and it’s no surprise that after a while they get lazy about saying “excuse me” to every dawdler they brush against on the street. Also because New Yorkers actually do hate tourists, and I’m pretty sure tourists can tell. New York magazine (where I found this article) has a choice quote that reflects my own feelings pretty well: “Omg, I hate plowing through the Rockefeller Center and Radio City tourists every day. I literally just want to tackle every one of them from behind, grab their heads in my hands and bash them into the concrete.“
(Credit: Howard N2GOT)
Seriously, this is like two blocks from where I work.
It’s possible that the Smithsonian writer and I simply travel in different circles. Maybe in her part of the New York, people really do call you sweetheart and advise you on how to raise your kids. To me, that sounds more like small town America. Or the old, gritty New York from stories I’ve read. In present-day midtown, where I live and work, only the doormen are friendly, because they get paid to be. The deli workers rarely speak English, and of all the times I’ve been on the bus, the longest sentence that’s ever been directed at me is “Pardon me, is this seat taken?”
I’m seriously stumped. Non New Yorkers, are we rude because we’re too chatty? Or not chatty enough?
I know, I know– I’ve fallen a bit behind on my posting. But I haven’t been eating potato chips and staring at the wall, I promise you! Here’s a list of my recent work in other places:
Enjoy– I’ll have fresh material up here soon.
I didn’t mean to have an opinion on the Miley Cyrus photos. I heard about it yesterday morning and didn’t think too much of it until I realized that every single site I read had posted about it. So now I want to put in my $0.02, and that’s this: What’s the big fucking deal?
(Credit: thehotblog.com)
There’s no denying that it’s meant to be a little sexy– the pose, the tousled hair and red lips (makeup or no), the satin sheet, and of course, the exposed back. But slutty? Sexy doesn’t have to equal trashy, and I don’t think it does here. Miley looks clean, fresh, and happy.
As for whether it’s age-inappropriate, well, it’s certainly edgy for someone who’s built her career and fortune on such a sweet, innocent persona. But fifteen is a weird age. At that point, you’re well aware of your sexuality, but haven’t quite figured out what to do with it yet. To paraphrase Britney Spears, Miley Cyrus is not a girl, not yet a woman. No, I don’t think all sexy shots of underage girls are OK, but this one is, in my humble opinion, tastefully done. It’s naive to pretend that Miley’s sexuality isn’t a large part of who she is– it’s a large part of any of us. And as portrayed in this picture, it appears to be a wholesome, healthy sexuality. She looks comfortable and in control. What’s so horrible about that?
I concede that as someone who has never had a child herself– indeed, as someone who has not had any sort of close relationship to a child since she herself was a child– I may not quite “get it.” It seems to me, though, that the worried parents should’ve realized a teenage pop idol would want to dirty up her pure image eventually. It’s true that Miley Cyrus, having set herself up as a tween idol, has some small amount of responsibility to her fans. Perhaps this wasn’t the best way of announcing that she was ready to move on. But you can’t ask a girl to stay a perfect thirteen-year-old forever because the kids need someone to look up to.
Every time some starlet decides to show a little more skin or act a little raunchier than the moral police would prefer, there’s all this hand-wringing about the poor, misguided children. I hear that. I as well could do with less of Lindsay Lohan’s vagina in my life. But the real problem is not that Lindsay Lohan (et cetera) is a bad role model. It’s that we live in a society that holds her up to be some twisted ideal, that rewards her for destructive behavior even as it punishes her for same, that cares to begin with whether or not she’s wearing underwear today. The kids only think of Lohan as an idol because the adults treat her like one by slapping her on the cover of every magazine and discussing the most intimate details of her life around the water cooler.
Miley Cyrus is just a dumb teenager (all teenagers, in my opinion, are pretty dumb) who is acting her age. We all did stupid shit at that age, only there were no paparazzi following us. What this is really about is her young followers, and you know what? They’ll survive. They’ll probably forget Miley Cyrus the moment she moves on to more mature stuff, if they aren’t old enough to graduate with her. Kids become good or bad adults based on lots of things, but if pop stars were really that important, we’d have a whole generation of young adults right now preaching the Gospel of the New Kids on the Block. On the list of a kid’s greatest, most lasting influences, I’d wager that in the long run, cheesy musicians actually don’t rank all that highly.
New York magazine has made no secret of its love for Gossip Girl—its weekly Intel accounting of the show’s verisimilitude is one of my favorite regular reads. But this week, it’s gone TOO FAR.
(Credit: E! Online)
It’s a fun show, I’ll give you that. Maybe even a good show. But “BEST. SHOW. EVER.”? I think not. Setting aside the obvious rebuttal that this statement makes absolutely no sense as long as Battlestar Galactica, Friday Night Lights, and The Office exist, there’s still no justification for this bold statement. Inside, the article promises to explore the show’s “genius” and show us how it is “changing the way we watch television,” but I still don’t see it. Here are their main points (italicized subheads quoted directly from original article), and why I just can’t get on board…
Very pleased to announce that Bitch Happy will be joining Geeks of Doom this weekend to cover the 2008 New York Comic-Con.
(Credit: Marvel.com)
Got a soft spot for this one.
Keep an eye out on their site for posts from yours truly!
It’s been going around for a while now that J.K. Rowling is suing the founder of the Harry Potter Lexicon, Steven Vander Ark, because he plans to publish an encyclopedia-type book based on the material on his website. I heard about it a while back, but I guess I thought they’d figure out a way to settle the matter out of court, or something, because I was surprised and saddened to hear that proceedings had officially begun.
(Credit: AP via MSNBC)
I don’t know about you, but I’m with the fan on this one. I hear where JKR is coming from. There have long been rumors that she planned to publish an encyclopedia herself, and it’s understandable that she’s upset someone else is trying to make money off of the universe that she created. But the Lexicon would be less like an eighth Harry Potter book and more like a CliffsNotes, so this makes about as much sense as (theoretically) Toni Morrison suing CliffsNotes for publishing a guide to The Bluest Eye. (Or is there some system in place that I don’t know about whereupon CliffsNotes pays authors money to use their books? In which case, never mind.)
Moreover, the kind of people who would actually buy the Lexicon are the kind of people who already own all seven Harry Potter books in hardcover and possibly in multiple languages, along with t-shirts, mugs, DVDs, and buttons. In other words, they are the type of rabid fans who would drop everything to buy JKR’s version of an encyclopedia even if they already owned Vander Ark’s. Even if this is murky legal ground, I don’t believe she’d really lose that much money by letting him go ahead with the book.
It’s also difficult to side with her because, well, it’s just so David and Goliath. She’s one of the world’s richest, most powerful people, and he’s a slavishly devoted fan whose years of dedication were finally about to pay off. I don’t know whether or not the Lexicon team earned money from their site, but even if they did, I can’t imagine it was very much.
Before Vander Ark got his book deal in 2007, JKR used to praise him for his dedication, going so far as to admit that she herself used it as a reference while writing her books. Which makes me think she probably would have checked the Lexicon while creating her own encyclopedia, and I doubt she’d have cut him a check. She’s generally been pretty cuddly with her fans, encouraging speculation, fanfic, and overall obsession, but apparently the love ends when your reward for years of hard work begins.
I can see that she has a case, though I believe Vander Ark’s is stronger. And I can understand why she felt compelled to act as she did. I still wish she hadn’t. It’s always sad when a good relationship goes sour, but this one leaves a particularly bad taste in my mouth. I want to ask whether the money is really worth the damage to her relationship with her fans, but as I don’t foresee a fan boycott, the answer is probably yes.
The New York Times today has an article about Hollywood wondering how to make so-called “chick flicks” appeal to more men. Well, for starters, don’t use the term “chick flicks.” The term itself effectively tells half the potential audience that this movie isn’t for them.
(Credit: AllMoviePhoto.com)
Yes, why don’t more men want to watch films in which one of their kind succumbs to an apparently mentally ill woman?
On a more serious note, the first thing Hollywood might consider is making these movies actually, y’know, good. 27 Dresses, Catch & Release, The Holiday? Did any of those look at all original, smart, interesting, or even just funny and romantic? I wouldn’t recommend those films to anyone, male or female. Believe it or not, it is possible to make a female-centric film with a strong romantic plot that doesn’t suck. See: Juno. But then those movies aren’t considered “chick flicks” because they’re actually good enough to appeal to everyone.
(Credit: Reel Movie News)
Chick flick.
(Credit: ABC News)
Not a chick flick.
A lot of the problem, I think, is this weird notion that there’s such a thing as “the female mind.” I’m not going to pretend that women and men are exactly alike, but they do have a lot in common because they are both human. I cringe when I read or watch otherwise excellent stories with sorely underdeveloped female characters because the male writer couldn’t figure out how to write women. You want to understand women? Write for a man, and change the names at the end.
There are other problems too. In the article, Jerry Bruckheimer speculates that “If we do our job right, [Confessions of a Shopaholic] could be another Wedding Crashers.” Right, that’s going to happen. First of all, this movie doesn’t sound like it’s any good either. Then there’s the matter of, how many guys are really going to go to the ticket agent and ask to see something titled Confessions of a Shopaholic? If you’re really hoping to get male butts in those seats, that’s just bad marketing.
(Credit: Starpulse.com)
The outfit speaks for itself.
I could go into a whole spiel about how it’s because femininity is devalued and men are unused to watching films from a female perspective and etc., etc., but the fact is, that’s not a title that sounds inviting to men. Not saying it’s right, saying that’s how it is. Might’ve helped if “chick flicks” weren’t so strongly associated with low quality.
If Jerry Bruckheimer is looking for a female Wedding Crashers, how about a hilarious and heartfelt film about two conniving and immature yet likable sex-crazed single gals who find true love in spite of themselves? Now that’s something I’d watch.
I realized something while watching this trailer: Jessica Alba is the harbinger of suckitude.
I like Aaron Eckhart. I also like Timothy Olyphant, Elizabeth Banks, Kristen Wiig, and Jason Sudeikis (Floyd from 30 Rock). But I do not like this trailer. I’m not saying it’s entirely her fault the movie looks bad, or that I hate her. It’s just that her presence is the very detail that tipped my impression of this movie from “Eh, it might be okay” to “What are all these fine actors doing in such a crap movie?”
Think about it: Has she been in anything that wasn’t awful? Good Luck Chuck, The Eye, Fantastic Four… I suppose one could make an argument for Sin City, though I didn’t like it much personally, but that’s still a very poor batting average. Fair or not, she’s been in enough films now that I have some impression of what a “Jessica Alba film” is, the same way I expect a Seth Rogen film to be funny and a Philip Seymour Hoffman film to be awesome, and what a Jessica Alba film is, is shit.
