Quick Hit: Anna Paquin Naked!

The ESC is obsessed with True Blood. (Yeah, we know, us and about five million other people.) Lilith was the first one to get into it, and awhile back she basically insisted that I start watching it too, so now we're both hooked.

The show stars Anna Paquin as Sookie Stackhouse, a telepathic waitress who gets herself involved with vampires, killers, vampire killers, shapeshifters...it's complicated. There's a lot of sex and violence on the show, which is part of the reason why we love it and the One Million Moms would hate it. Paquin is on the cover of the September issue of Nylon magazine, and one of the questions in the interview is about all of the nude scenes that she's had to do on the show:

Anna Paquin, on her Nude Scenes:
“I don’t think a naked body is particularly shocking or interesting… It’s not the culture I was raised in. I was not brought up in the United States. I don’t share the [attitude] that you can have graphic violence, but – God forbid – you see someone’s nipples.”

We've written a bunch of times before about the sex/violence disconnect - that is, the fact that conservative groups like the One Millions Moms and Morality in Media consistently freak the fuck out about any sexual content in the media while largely ignoring all of the violent content that's out there. So it's nice to see an actor call it out and point out that nudity shouldn't be particularly shocking or scandalous.

Crossposted: EvilSlutopia.com

I have an urge to purge...

Well, fuck me gently with a chainsaw... they're doing it again. They're trying to turn a hit 80's movie into a TV show. Or rather, trying to exploit the "brand" name of a hit movie by watering it down. Just a few days ago we wrote about the St. Elmo's Fire "remake" and how we thought it was a pretty dumb idea. But now they've gone too far!

Heathers was one of my most favorite 80's films ever. I love it so much, in fact, that we purposely didn't include it in our recent 80's remake fantasy casting because I could never imagine anyone filling the shoes of Winona Ryder, Christian Slater, et al. There have been rumors of a Heathers sequel forever - mainly because Winona Ryder brings it up every few years - but director Michael Lehmann swears that it's never gonna happen. So imagine the shock and dismay (and I'll admit, curiosity) when we read that 1988 theatrical failure turned cult-hit Heathers would also be taken to the small screen. What's your damage, Fox!?

The other day, we had the misfortune of accidentally watching another great-movie-turned-terrible-TV-show, 10 Things I Hate About You. What a piece of garbage that show is. I'm sure that Heath Ledger is turning over in his grave every time it airs. (Well, what else do we expect from the network that brought us The Secret Life of the American Teenager?) The story has been completely watered-down and the characters are mere caricatures of the originals.

We think it's safe to assume that this will be the same fate for any Heathers-reimagining. It's got to be somewhat of a tough-sell (even for Fox) to bring the dark humor tale of teenage murder-disguised-as-suicide storyline to network TV. Might be pretty risky trying to preserve the true essence of the movie and the plot is sure to be a logistical nightmare. Can they really drag the murders out farther than a few episodes, let alone a few seasons, without totally altering the heart of the story?

If they eliminate the murders altogether and just turn it into another "high school can be a mega-bitch" series, then what's left to differentiate it from Gossip Girl, the new 90210, or pretty much anything else on the CW? Why even bother calling it Heathers in that case? Just call it Mean Girls: The Series.

But who knows... maybe it will work. Taking a famous movie and turning it into a TV show can be a big risk, but sometimes the bigger the risk, the bigger the reward. One huge risk that did pay off was Buffy The Vampire Slayer. Based on a cheesy B-movie about an airhead cheerleader turned "chosen one", that series may have been one of the biggest risks in TV history. (The original film starred Kristy Swanson and Luke Perry for chrissakes!). It ended up being a risk worth taking. Buffy, which aired for seven years, earned creator Joss Whedon Emmy nominations, a spin-off (Angel) and a cult following. And this was before the vampire genre blew up with the likes of True Blood and Twilight, etc.

There was a very different fate for the short-lived and long-forgotten Ferris Bueller series, based on the movie starring Matthew Broderick. The film was a huge hit and is still popular today, but the show tanked. The TV show Clueless - which actually featured many of the original cast members from the movie version, minus star Alicia Silverstone - was also canceled early on.
So maybe Heathers will be successful as a TV show... maybe it will be true to the original film... but it's pretty unlikely that it will be both.

Crossposted: EvilSlutopia.com

Quick Hit: St. Elmo's Fire

We just wrote about remaking our favorite 80s movies... but this is just too much. Apparently St. Elmo's Fire is being remade - nay, "re-envisioned" - as a TV show. No really.

Joel Schumacher, who co-wrote and directed the original film, is teaming up with Dan Bucatinsky, Jamie Tarses, and Topher Grace to bring this "new" show to ABC. Luckily they're not trying to completely recreate the movie (because that would totally not work). Rather they're just using the film as inspiration to recreate "the feeling of bonding with your friends who become your surrogate family."

Instead of the original seven characters, there will be six recent grads - three girls and three guys - sort of like a post-grad Friends. Bucatinksy, said "I feel it is time to re-create Friends in the hour-long genre and feel like this is the perfect opportunity". (Also, Tarses developed Friends as an NBC exec).

Of course, there already are a few shows out there that have tried to mimic the Friends-phenomenon with quirky ensemble casts of buddies... like How I Met Your Mother, the geeky The Big Bang Theory or the CW's new Melrose Place remake. (Not to mention the fact that there was already a sitcom about recent graduates this year called Roommates. It lasted a whole two months before it was cancelled.)

Of course, this begs the question: if it's not going to be like the original St. Elmo's Fire, then why even call it "St. Elmo's Fire"? Maybe because they're just trying to capitalize off of an already-established favorite (by copying another already-established favorite) instead of trying to come up with an original idea for a change? Yeah, that's probably it.

But how successful is it really going to be if the people who didn't like the movie are put off by the concept and end up not giving the show a try, the people who loved the movie are put off by the watered-down and half-assed attempt at a "reframing", and the people who don't remember or don't care about the movie will assume that the show isn't for them?

Even if you put all of that aside, the biggest problem is that the best part of St. Elmo's Fire wasn't really the storyline, but the cast... and it will definitely be hard to recreate that kind of chemistry again without a group like the Brat Pack. So why even bother?

Crossposted: EvilSlutopia.com

80's Remake Fantasy Casting

We've been watching a lot of 80's movies lately. Not sure why... Maybe the TV networks are just feeling a bit nostalgic for fun music and bad fashion, who knows? Either way, we've been enjoying it, but it's also given us a lot to think about. So many classic movies from our childhood have been - or are about to be - remade. It definitely brings up mixed feelings.

On the one hand, we love these movies... who wouldn't want to relive them? On the other hand, there really only a small chance that anyone will possibly be able to do these films justice. Yes, we realize that a lot of these films actually totally sucked, but they sucked in a good way. It's very hard to reproduced the correct ratio of cheesy-to-awesome. There have been a lot of remake rumors over the years. Some totally great (like Tron: Legacy) and some totally terrifying (like an Adventures in Babysitting remake starring Raven-Symone). Some of the choices are just puzzling... like reinventing Fame as a squeaky clean teen flick or casting Chace Crawford in the new Footloose. Sure he's pretty, but can he dance?

We admit we were a little disappointed when we heard the news that Zac Efron was taking a pass on the Footloose remake. He seemed perfect to fill Kevin Bacon's shoes. But then the other day we were watching TV and realized that there is a much better 80's remake idea for him: Teen Wolf! No, really.

Unlike some classic 80's flicks like Weird Science or Red Dawn that just would not translate to our 21st century world, Teen Wolf is a story so timeless it could take place in any decade. Plus we know how much people love to cast Zac Efron as a high school basketball star. (And really, if there was ever anything more implausible than Zac Efron as a basketball star, it was Michael J. Fox as one).

They even almost look alike:

Actually, after writing this, we googled "Zac Efron Teen Wolf" on a whim and realized that we're not so far off - there is a remake in the works and he is being considered. (We are always right on top of this shit). He probably won't take the part, but we're keeping our fingers crossed. We'd also throw James Lafferty from One Tree Hill into the cast too - he's cute and he has years of experience playing a high school basketball star and dealing with totally implausible plotlines.

There are other 80's movies we'd secretly love to see remade (but of course we'd claim to be totally offended if anyone actually attempted to redo them)... like Little Darlings. We all know that Miley Cyrus is going to want to take some more serious movie roles after Hannah Montana... what could be better than losing her virginity at summer camp? America's favorite robot Kristen Stewart can co-star, because after Twilight she deserves a movie with some actual sex in it. It's at least got to be a better movie than Rhinestone 2: Still Rhiney.

And while I really hope that the rumors of Miley starring in a Girls Just Wanna Have Fun remake are totally, utterly false... I would love to see that movie remade. Screw Miley - if they're going to insist on going Disney, I'd rather see BFFs Selena Gomez and Demi Lovato co-star. How cute would that be!? Or maybe Gossip Girl besties Blake Lively and Leighton Meester.

Speaking of Blake Lively, did you know that her older sister Robyn was the star of Teen Witch? Which means that Blake would have to appear in any remake - such as the one rumored to be starring Disney darling Ashley Tisdale. It's the law.

And since it's a little known fact that we will watch almost anything starring Amanda Bynes (can't exactly explain why we love her, but we just do)... who else would we cast in a fantasy production of Sixteen Candles? She was already adorable in She's the Man (which, although not technically a remake, had pretty much the same premise as Just One of the Guys). In fact, she could re-team with co-star Channing Tatum as Jake Ryan. Not too many of today's current "hotties" are actually hot enough to pull off that kind of role and luckily there wouldn't be too many lines to confuse him. But they would have to add in an extra scene or two where Chan takes his shirt off. Please...

There are other 80's flicks that Hollywood is already attempting to remake. We're not quite sure if our reaction is horror, morbid curiosity, or breathless anticipation. Probably a combination. Some of these include Ferris Bueller's Day Off (the proposed script is actually for a sequel, with Matthew Broderick reprising his role as Ferris 20 years later) and Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure (without George Carlin can it possibly be any good?)

There's one classic that we hope never gets made: The Breakfast Club. There's just no way they could ever do the original justice. But the more we thought about it, the more we wondered which of today's young stars would fill the shoes of the infamous brain, athlete, basket case, princess and criminal... and we came up with some hilarious ideas.

• They could do an all Gossip Girl recast: Penn Badgley, Chace Crawford, Taylor Momsen, Leighton Meester, and Ed Westwick (respectively)


• Or One Tree Hill: Bethany Joy Galeotti, James Lafferty, Hilarie Burton, Sophia Bush and Chad Michael Murray


• Or a 90210 version: Michael Steger, Dustin Milligan, Jessica Stroup, Shenae Grimes, and Matt Lanter.


• How about the Secret Life (you know we love any excuse to mention this show): Ken Baumannn, Greg Finley, India Eisley, Megan Park and Daren Kagasoff.


• Or even a High School Musical one: Lucas Grabeel, Zac Efron, Vanessa Hudgens, Ashley Tisdale, and Corbin Bleu.

On second thought... no. Let's just forget about that one. What are some of your favorite 80's flicks you'd like to see remade... and your fantasy casts?

Crossposted: EvilSlutopia.com

Brand New Amazing Invention!

So as you may already know, we always pick up a copy of Cosmopolitan magazine when we travel. Cosmo has taught us many things over the years - how to stay safe by planting a cactus, how to save money by eating dinner at the grocery store, how to get guys to like you by pretending to like sports, how to stop being insecure by acting like a man, and of course, how to prevent looking like a slut by not having sex too soon - but we were not prepared for the groundbreaking discovery described in the August 2009 issue...

There's this new fangled invention called personal lubricant. Although we hear the kids today are calling it "lube". I know it sounds crazy, but it's true... Cosmo said that if we use this lube stuff, we can turn our man into an orgasm whisperer. (That's actually the title of the article: "Turn Him Into the Orgasm Whisperer"). If you don't believe us you can pick up a copy and check out pages 122-125 and learn all about this amazing totally brand new product that apparently no one has ever heard of before.

Lubrication is very important... not just because dry sex can be a real pain (literally) but because if you're not wet enough it will totally traumatize your man.

...psychologically, dryness can have an even more negative and traumatizing effect on his libido. "While a guy may logically know that a woman's wetness has nothing to do with his sexual prowess, subconsciously, he still may think he's not enough in bed to arouse her"

Cosmo was kind enough to explain exactly how to use lube - because it's really hard to figure out on your own - and even gave some sexy suggestions for ways to use it. For example, they suggested putting it in your vagina or on your man's penis. Who would've thought?! Apparently, you can use it during sex, awesome idea! There are all kinds of lube and each one is specially designed for Cosmo's "advanced tricks" including:

• using water-based lube for a natural feel
• using silicone-based lube (that won't wash away) in the shower
• using flavored lube for oral sex
• using warming lube to boost arousal
• using cooling lube on hot summer nights
• using single-use packets for sex on the go!

You can also use lube to "surprise him with a hand job" - you know, for anyone that still actually gives handjobs. They even suggest using it in substitute of massage oil... because as we all know there aren't any actual massage oils on the market.

Bottom line: There isn't a spot on your body that lube can't go.

Yes, according to Cosmo, you can use lube anywhere... except you know... um... in your bottom line. We had heard this crazy rumor that you can also use lube for anal sex, but Cosmo doesn't mention it so it probably isn't true. Also, Cosmo doesn't mention use of lube with sex toys of any kind... because I guess a woman doesn't need one if she has her very own "Orgasm Whisperer." (Heh.)

Crossposted: EvilSlutopia.com