Sunday, May 30, 2010

Baseball Baseball Baseball!

It's baseball season! Is everyone totally excited? How is your team doing? Winning? Losing? Are you loyal to one team, no matter how bad they're doing? Do you support the local arenas or root for players from out of state? Are you a Cosmo-style fan who only roots for the hottest players? (Kidding.)

We can't deny that most of the Good Authority are Yankee fans, but we're not the kind of Yankee fans that hate the Mets or anything. (Although we're not going to comment on how we feel about the Boston Red Sox.) And yeah, we know, everyone hates the Yankees, we don't need to hear it.

We have to admit that even though we're big fans of the Yankees, we're usually lazy fans who are more likely to watch the game on TV (preferably while drinking beer) than buy tickets and trek to Yankee Stadium...Although it does happen from time to time. We've also been to a bunch of Mets games, but we haven't been to Citi Field yet. We're not even used to saying Citi Field instead of Shea Stadium yet, but we'll get there.

But we do also travel a lot (World Domination takes a lot of work!) so we're always looking for fun things to do in any area we visit... including checking out the local home teams. (Of course, if they're playing the Yankees, all the better!) We had a lot of fun when we were in Chicago for BlogHer last summer, but unfortunately we were too busy to make it out to Wrigley Field for a game. And we're not sure that anything can top Jezebel's experience at Camden Yards a few years ago, when a drunk guy sitting in her section decided to throw his own impromptu dance party complete with a striptease down to his cow print boxer shorts. Shockingly the security guys were not amused.

If anyone has their own fun stories from live sports events, or you just want to invite us to come to a game with you, let us know!

Thursday, May 27, 2010

Fantasy Office Decorating: Rugs

We're on a fantasy office decorating kick again. This happens lately every time one of us mentions Pregnancy Pact, one of the most Lifetimey movies that Lifetime has made in years, featuring a character who works for a super cool vlog for teens based out of a "hip" and "trendy" office. It always sets us off on a discussion about the type of office that we want for our empire one day.

We've decided that we need rugs, and not some thin gray crappy generic office carpeting either. We're thinking of going the oriental rugs route, for a few reasons:

a) We're classy and sophisticated like that.
b) We need a nice place to sit when we're organizing our collection of Cosmo clippings
c) We're prioritizing comfort over productivity.
d) Did we mention we're really classy?

This rug + us and our laptops + a stack of Cosmos + pizza and/or Doritos = blogging gold.


*Decorating fantasies brought to you by eSaleRugs.com.

Even if you don't watch Glee, you still need to see this...

Monday, January 18, 2010

Cosmo Campaigns for GOP Senate Candidate and Former Nude Model

Well, here's a headline I never thought I'd write, but it's true. Scott Brown, a Republican who's currently running against Democrat Martha Coakley in a special election to fill the Senate seat formerly held by the late Ted Kennedy, once posed naked for Cosmo.

Here's the centerfold, straight from Cosmo's website:



















Many of you probably hadn't heard about this nude photo, but there's a good explanation for that. You see, Scott Brown is a man. If a female politician had a nude magazine photo shoot in her past, we all would have heard about it because it would have provoked a lot more media/blogosphere/tabloid/AFA action alert coverage than this photo is getting. In fact, would a female politician even be able to get to the point of being a candidate for the U.S. Senate with a photo like this in her past? I think it's doubtful. Opponents would use it to question her character and there would be plenty of slut-shaming going around. And even if party leaders didn't personally see the photos as a big deal, they'd probably be more likely to pass over a qualified female candidate rather than risk dealing with a potential scandal.

You might think that since Cosmo is supposed to be the home of the "fun fearless female" and is packed full of sex tips every month, they might mention something about this sexist double standard. Unfortunately they're too busy drooling over Scott Brown:

Long before he was a politician, the Republican candidate vying for Ted Kennedy’s U.S. Senate seat posed nude for the centerfold of Cosmo. Scott Brown won our “America’s Sexiest Man” contest and appeared in the June 1982 issue. In those days he was a 22-year-old law student at Boston College who was cramming for finals just days before stripping down for our photographer.

“Here at Cosmo we’ve had bachelors go on to be actors, models, and reality show stars, so we’re thrilled that one has gone on to become a politician,” says Kate White, Cosmo’s editor in chief. Obviously we know how to pick ’em. This particular bachelor has always had political ambitions and even admitted to being “a bit of a patriot” when we interviewed him.

Compared to some men in the GOP, this politician looks pretty damn good for his age. We bet he still has an amazing body underneath his suit and tie. There have been plenty of pics of our president running around without his shirt, so now that a precedent has been set, we’re hoping to see Scott shirtless again.

Since we know the candidate so, ahem, well, we thought we’d help him out with a few campaign slogans:

Who Needs Joe Plumber When You Can Have Scott Six-Pack?

Scott Brown: A Name You Can Trust, Abs You Can Believe In

Vote for Brown. He Has One Hell of a Stimulus Package.

Leave your own slogans for Scott Brown below!


I understand why Cosmo wanted to highlight the random fun fact that a candidate for the U.S. Senate was once naked in the pages of their magazine, but I don't think they also needed to "help him out" with a fluffy post about how "thrilled" they are over his political career, complete with links to his campaign website and campaign slogans, but minus any comment about his actual positions on the issues that will most affect Cosmo's young female readership.

I know, I know. What did I expect, right? This is Cosmo we're talking about. And I get that their brilliant campaign slogans aren't "real", just really cheesy and cringeworthy. But it's still annoying to see such a shallow cheerleading post about the cute guy running for the Senate when this election is so important.

Cosmo can joke about Scott Brown's "stimulus package", but not mention his opposition to health care reform. They can brag about how they "know how to pick ’em", but not point out that his opponent, Martha Coakley, would be the first female Senator in the history of Massachusetts. They can talk about how good he looks for his age, but not mention a recent press conference in which "Massachusetts' leading advocacy organizations for women’s reproductive rights denounced Republican Scott Brown’s poor record on a woman’s right to choose". They can fantasize about seeing more shirtless pictures without letting their readers know that "In 2005, he sponsored legislation to allow doctors and nurses to turn away rape victims from Massachusetts emergency rooms if they objected to providing rape victims with emergency contraception."

In short, the fun fearless females who read Cosmo might have a lot to fear if Scott Brown is elected. Obviously I don't turn to Cosmo for deep political analysis or think that anyone should depend on them for coverage of important issues. But it would be nice if their editors could at least acknowledge that this election is critically important and not just an excuse to tell "package" jokes, and stop propping up the dated old idea that women will vote for the "cute" candidate regardless of his positions on the issues that matter most to them.

Reclaiming Our TV Addiction

Sometimes we miss the good old days when we were watching tons of horrible cheesy reality TV and writing about it all the time.  (Most of the time we're okay with writing about actual important topics instead.)  It's been a long time since a show inspired us to do weekly text message commentary.  The ____ of Love franchise just isn't doing it for us anymore.

Good thing we don't have Satellite Directv or one of those other satellite TV services, or we'd probably be even more addicted.  The NFL packages alone would keep the sports fans in the ESC glued to their TVs for even more hours every Sunday during football season.  And we still have a couple of friends who love Friday Night Lights, which airs on Direct TV months before the episodes are shown on NBC, and they keep telling us how we're missing out on all of the cheesy goodness.    

Yeah, you know what, screw it.  It's winter.  It's freezing cold out.  What are we going to do with our time?  Exercise?  Go out and interact with people?  No, we're going to order pizza and hang out on the couch making fun of bad TV.  Now we just need a friend with DirectTV to invite us over.  We'll bring Doritos, beer, and other healthy foods.

Saturday, December 12, 2009

Coming Soon: ESC House

Since it's become obvious that pretty much anyone can get a reality show these days, we're thinking of getting a house that we can all live in together so that we can shoot for our own show. Of course, the house has to be ESC-friendly and reality show filming-friendly, so we'll probably need to have it build to our specifications. We've found a website that has thousands of different house plans and resources for home planning, so we're in the research phase now. We'll get to the 'how can we ever afford this?' phase later. Priorities.


*New house fantasy brought to you by houseplansandmore.com.

Friday, October 16, 2009

Fame Lite


Recently I was dragged by two 9-year-olds to see the new Fame movie.

I feel a little funny calling it "Fame" because it's really just a watered down "reinvention" that is merely trying to capitalize off of the popularity of the 1980 original. It's more like "Fame Lite". They would have been better off calling it "Musical High School" or something like that (although, that probably would have been criticized as trying to capitalize off of the popularity of the High School Musical franchise, which yeah they sort of are doing too). If they had just promoted it as "High School Musical: New York Style" it might have actually worked but as Fame it just falls flat.

Director Kevin Tancharoen explained why he didn't try to do a straight remake:
"Coco, Leroy, Bruno, Ralph, you cannot cast them again. [...] If you recast them, you will already have people who hate it, and I know there will be haters no matter what. You can, however, take the original idea and core message and integrity and play it to 2009."
The problem was that he didn't maintain the original message or integrity either. It's not that they didn't try to take inspiration from the original, because it seems that they did... The problem is that that inspiration didn't turn into anything really worth watching. For example, instead of the famous scene where Coco (Irene Cara) cries as she takes off her top for a sleazy fake casting director with a camera, the PG version gives us Jenny (Kay Panabaker) "running lines" with an actor who it turns out just wants to make out with her. After all of the juicy R-rated movie content (abortion, drug use, homosexuality) was stripped away, all that's really left is some PG singing and dancing.



Apparently I'm not the only person who feels this way. Sir Alan Parker, the director of the original 1980 Fame, described the remake as "dreadful". In fact, he compared the whole project to being mugged:
"It's a bit like being mugged. Such are the realities of Hollywood manners and American copyright law. [...] I feel very much that Fame is mine. I spent months with the kids at the school then spent a year making the movie. You do the work and make it as good as it can be, and you try to protect it. Then, because the copyright is owned by the studio, as with almost all American feature films, they can do a remake like this. It's extremely galling. There is no other area of the arts where you can do that."
Kevin Tancharoen, the remake's director, claimed in a recent interview that he had Parker's blessings and seal of approval, but Parker says this is untrue. "I have never had a single phone call from anyone - the studio, the producers - about this remake. No-one spoke to me about it. To say so is absolute nonsense." Parker is considering legal action over the use of the original Fame logo (the studio doesn't own the rights to that).

The critics have also been... well, critical. Here are some excerpts from a few of our favorite disses.

Lee Black, MSNBC:

Kevin Tancharoen knows what dancers do but keeps the movie as bright and scrubbed as a recent Disney Channel TV movie about some kids in an all-singing, all-dancing high school. [...]F-words: R-rated 1980 version = 39, PG-rated 2009 remake = 0. Whether you think that’s an improvement or not depends on your need to hear the way teenagers actually speak vs. your desires for an illusory “We’re All In This Together” cuddle-fest.
David Foucher, EDGE United States:
Alas, there’s nothing subversive or remotely steamy about "Fame" in 2009. The precursor had the audacity to tackle shocking issues in 1980: abortion, drug abuse, religion, and nudity. Here, an apparent attempt to latch onto the "High School Musical" demographic has crippled the film’s traction, leaving it largely without a significant thematic purpose in favor of a general admonishment that desire without hard work won’t get you fame. Duh. [...]

Either way, the movie is a soulless, inconsequential, vapid, hideously boring waste of time. That’s a shame, given the courageous nature of its predecessor and the culture of instant fame-making we live with thanks to reality television today. This should have been a creatively fulfilling remake; instead, "Fame" just leaves you creatively famished.

Fame gives us all four years of lessons learned, careers begun and hopes dashed, and that's just too much to cover with too many characters for this to gel. Quick sketches of characters, quicker sketches of their homelife, don't add to a complete portrait.

And if you're going to censor this material in imitation of The Disney Channel's greatest hit, you'd better fill in the holes with fun. Fame forgets that.

I could totally see this cast of teachers starring in a new TV version of Fame. But if you're just trying to reprise High School Musical, I don't think I'd bother watching it.

Jeffrey M. Anderson, Cinematical:
The new remake of Fame will appeal to pre-teens who hope to go to performing arts schools, but who -- implausibly -- have never seen any other movies, or plays, or dance performances or music recitals. Moreover, they must not yet possess the ability to tell good performance from bad, nor truly inspired plot twists from hackneyed ones. Parents, on the other hand, will find that the movie sucks their will to live. [...]

Tancharoen also tries to capture a "gritty" New York City feel, and his attempt is a failure; one shot of Times Square only reminds us that it has become a "walking mall," and a million miles away from the world of the original Fame. Despite all the collective experience of the teachers, not one of the students ever shows a moment of truth or real personality; it's all pre-programmed, test-marketed product for teens to consume, even if they don't know why. As for myself, as a lifelong lover of film and an admirer or artistic personality, I found this one of the year's most abysmally awful, depressing movie experiences.
Stephen Farber, Hollywood Reporter:
Let's be clear. The original movie, despite its iconic stature, was no classic. The script was riddled with cliches and overheated melodramatic confrontations. Nevertheless, the energy of the young performers propelled it. While this new version retains the basic structure of following several kids over four years at New York's High School of Performing Arts, it's been diluted in almost every imaginable way. [...]

Tancharoen doesn't weave the stories together gracefully, and the musical sequences are edited in the chop-chop MTV style that does no favors to the performers. Marguerite Derricks' choreography is lively, though very few dance routines are played out at any length. The new "Fame" is like a series of snippets and teasers for a movie still waiting to be made.
Peter Paras, E Online (UK):

Review in a Hurry: The '80s sensation is reborn for the High School Musical generation. But sadly, this one's all fame, no journey. [...]

At 90 minutes, cramming in four years of hopes and dreams at the fabled New York City High School of Performing Arts feels like one long music video, rather than a movie.

Kherington Payne of So You Think You Can Dance


If you loved the original Fame, don't go see this movie. You will be sorely disappointed. If you're into watching teenagers sing and dance and be overly emotive (or you happen to be between the ages of 8 and 16), then you might enjoy "Fame Lite". It's actually not a terrible movie - some of those kids are pretty damn talented - but it pales in comparison to the real Fame.

So my advice is: if you do go see this movie, pretend that it's not a remake and just try to enjoy it for what it is... instead of what it isn't.