Don't tell him it's fake

Oh, Kevin Federline. Why must you continually abuse our minds with your existence? And why do you have to go out of your way to prove that you're even less intelligent and talented than we originally thought (a difficult feat, I know)? With the knowledge secure in our heads that being the ex-Mr. Britney Spears would lead to you vanishing from existence, why did you have to show up anywhere again? And People Magazine? Don't think you're getting off the hook easily, because you're just as guilty.

Sure, we could blame someone else, too, but there's a good chance that they're just trying to give the world what it wants. But we can still blame People for continuing to foist K-Fed on us, and we can blame K-Fed for foisting himself on the WWE.

True, in many ways, this seems like a match made in heaven. K-Fed gets to live out what is, in many circles, a white-trash dream, by getting to dress in leather and pretend to beat the snot out of someone, while the fans get to watch this never-been get trounced like he so richly deserves. But you have to wonder if K-Fed even realizes the nature of a professional wrestling match (and yes, this is after he's already appeared in WWE events). Yes, it's fake. Yes, it's scripted. Oh, and yes, most of the professional wrestlers are huge, musclebound, steroid-enhanced monsters who could break someone like Federline in half if he even thought about stepping off-script.

Ultimately, what does a move like this do for either party? Well, for Federline, it succeeds in landing him more television time, something that's evaporating faster than you can say "divorce text message". For the WWE, they get to promote a match between one of their top talents, and a smarmy punk that never earned a cent that he lived off of. And for John Cena, the man who will be facing K-Fed, he gets the pleasure of (again) beating K-Fed, thereby acting as an extension for all of humanity.

Actually, maybe this is a win-win situation. Just as long as the WWE remembers the problems that once sprang up in the wrestling world around David Arquette.

Because, really? Anything that David Arquette touches turns to rot. Just look at Courtney Cox.



Oh, and a happy belated birthday to Polinaut, since they kind of inspired the CSM to get rolling. They just don't have as much snark, and they tend to stay on subject better...

A mid-career crisis

It's a well-known fact that at a middle point of life, many people go through changes. Men are more stereotypically represented by the mid-life crisis, as the image of a new sports car and engaging in younger activities is more than common. Apparently, we can rest assured that careers follow a similar arc, as Tucker Carlson has recently announced a mid-career crisis, changing something previously tied strongly into his image.

No, I'm not talking about his image-skewing appearance on Dancing with the Stars. I'm talking about his decision to let loose and get rid of the bowtie that has been so iconic to him.

Obviously, this is a huge step in the evolution of Tucker, as he sees the younger audiences that are so important to television being drawn away by other newscasters, such as Bill O'Reilly, Keith Olbermann, and Samantha Bee. The bow tie was a bit off-putting, and didn't seem to mesh with the rather aggressive style he hosts his show. Now, however, the gloves, or more specifically, the outdated pieces of neckwear, are off.

On a related note, the fact that Tucker Carlson has decided to set down the bowtie drops to an all-time low the number of potential bow-tie wearing Halloween costumes for 2007. While we still may see the bowtie by people dressing as James Bond (or Barney Frank), there aren't many more options. Let's hold out hope that someone else will revive this little-used piece of fashion.

If only to give the kids something else to make fun of.

Not popular enough to cause a fight

First, it was Mel Gibson, with his anti-Semitic commentary chalked up to a drunken accident. Then it was Michael Richards, with his racist diatribe in response to a couple of hecklers during an ultimately unfunny set. After two incidents that actually sparked some levels of debate and discussion nationwide, we were given the gift of Andy Dick trying to prove that he, like Richards, can make apologies for being racist (when really, he should make apologies for being untalented and still taking up valuable screen time). Finally, there was a report recently that Pauly Shore was physically attacked during a stand-up show, due to comments made, once again, to a heckler.

Only it doesn't seem like that's really the case. Shore no longer registers high enough on anyone's radars to provoke an attack, even if he is a complete jerk to the audience, without paying someone to be part of it. At least, that's according to police in Odessa, TX, who say that the video of Shore being hit in the face was a fake, and that the entire thing was a skit.

Pauly, Pauly, Pauly... when will you learn? We stopped paying attention to you a long time ago, and the notion of you getting hit in the face is not going to bring any pity your direction. In fact, if any of us remember any of the films you made, we might think that you getting punched is a fitting punishment for the pain you caused us. True, you have more influence than Andy Dick (who's "attack" and confession weren't even blips on people's radars), but you're not important enough to get us to feel bad.

Perhaps Pauly Shore would have had more success with his "skit" if he'd channeled a character named "Tony Clifton", and made sure to hire someone who could make the punch look real. If he wants to do this again, I'm sure that there are a lot of people who would be more than happy to make sure that punching Shore in the face plays at the heights of realism.

Just because we still haven't forgiven him for BioDome. Yes, Stephen Baldwin, you're on the list, too.

Three of Four Horsemen Identified

This shouldn't come as much of a surprise, but the folks at Disney, the same folks who originally talked about bailing completely from the project in question, are now promoting both Mel Gibson and his violent vision, Apocalypto. The Mouse is even in an Oscar push, which should be unsurprising given the nature of the film, and Gibson's own track record with the little golden guy. However, the tactic Disney is using to campaign for the film is a bit, well, out of the ordinary.

They're taking the time to remind the Academy that Mel Gibson is by no means as bad as Roman Polanski or Woody Allen.

While it's true that drunken, mostly incoherent anti-Semitic ramblings are in a completely different playing field than any sort of sexual contact between an adult and a child (or a parent and their step-child), that's part of the problem. It's a different playing field. The instances aren't similar enough to be compared in such a way, let alone to try and use the transgressions of others as proof that you're guy just isn't that bad.

Although, it's possible that Disney is simply trying to be benevolent, and that the Great Mouse is looking out for us all. How are we supposed to know that they aren't specifically tying Gibson, Polanski, and Allen together to warn us? Isn't it possible that the director of Apocalypto could be part of a group of Men of Crisis who are Frantic as they try to usher in the end times? Could it be that the Disney corporation knows that the Four Horsemen are already amongst us, with Michael Richards filling in for the little-recognized Pestilence?

Or is this just another example of what has become all too prevalent in our world, where the crimes of one person are exploited by an outside organization to make the crimes of another person seem lesser by comparison? Disney has proven, in one swift, calculated move that they aren't above playing dirty to try and get what they want. Which, ultimately, makes them no different from Miramax (no, they haven't been forgiven for Shakespeare in Love).

Now seriously, how do you say "sugartits" in Mayan?

Signs of the Apocalypto

First, The Passion of the Christ was accused of being anti-Semitic before the movie ever saw the light of day. Then came the whole experience with the Jewish police officer and the alcohol. Now, the descendants of the Mayan empire have a beef with him.

Things just haven't been going well for Mel Gibson recently.

While Apocalypto and Gibson have received some praise for their usage of the Mayan language, and for the casting of mostly indigenous actors, there is still quite a bit of uproar revolving around the film. The fact that, at least in the trailers, the characters are pictured as being fairly savage, and engaging in the practice of sacrifices makes those of Mayan descent feel that Gibson is once again putting forward a racist epic. The same comments that haunted The Passion of the Christ are now being levied against the new film.

While there may be a hint of truth behind this, I think it's important to underline what Gibson is actually doing, and that is creating an overly self-important film. After all, it's one thing to be reading subtitles for a film that was produced completely by (and for) people that don't speak your native tongue. It's still another to be reading subtitles because the director has decided, ever since he fabricated a story about Scotland, that he's important and powerful enough to film the entire movie using what has mostly become a dead language. What's next for Gibson? Is he going to regale us with a sweeping documentary about the Crusades, with the entire soundtrack in Latin? At least with Latin, a few more people globally will recognize and understand without missing half the action because they're reading the bottom of the screen.

So yes, Mel Gibson has once again made an offensive movie. But not because it may or may not be racist. Apocalypto will be offensive because it will have an extended running time, and it will be used to preen the feathers of an overly egomaniacal director, one who feels that he can get away with the conceit of using a mostly dead language because, well, his film is just so darned important.

Now, how do you say "sugar tits" in Mayan?

Still not ready for prime-time

But, quite possibly, more than ready for happy hour. We are, of course, talking about former Saturday Night Live and current 30 Rock "actor" (we use the term loosely) Tracy Morgan. Morgan has followed up his lack of overall success with SNL by falling into the "Tony Danza Trap"; namely, he plays a character which shares his first name, and is being outshone by older and once-talented castmates. In Danza's case, it was pretty much everyone he shared screen time with (including Judith Light). In Morgan's case, it's the sudden resurgence of Alec Baldwin into a bankable commodity.

So what do you do when you realize that you're in this situation, and that, even though your show is completely different from Aaron Sorkin's latest piece, even Untalented Cordry gets more laughs than you? Well, you reprise your greatest hits. And, when you're Tracy Morgan, your greatest hits involve driving after having had a few too many at a local watering hole.

This is the second time in the past year where Morgan has been pulled over for drinking and driving. The first time, he was fined $390, a small sum for most actors but surely something placed on a credit card for someone of Tracy Morgan's caliber, and ordered to attend an alcohol education class.

Almost makes you wonder if he ran into Mel Gibson and Robin Williams while there. Although I don't think that's the type of alcohol education the law enforcement officials were hoping Morgan would receive.

Cavuto can spot a hidden agenda a mile away

Recently, on the FOXNews program, Your World with Neil Cavuto, there was what some are calling a glaring omission. The business program completely ignored the role played by parent company News Corp.'s decision to not publish or produce anything in relation to OJ Simpson's admitted push to gather together some "blood money" for his children. After all, why would anyone watching a business news program care in the slightest about a major marketing decision by a large multi-tiered organization.

Thankfully, Cavuto did take the time to point out that the new animated movie Happy Feet carried a hidden leftist agenda, even calling the film an "animated Inconvenient Truth". Cavuto even went so far as to say that he felt Hollywood was trying to "sneak one by us", as if the concept that any movie that could teach children about global warming's possibilities would be a bad thing.

Now, I admit, I haven't seen Happy Feet, so all of my information about the film is relegated to what I've gleaned from reviews and the commercials/trailers. Still, the film is purportedly more March of the Penguins than An Inconvenient Truth. Even with that, the main theme of the film seems to be an acceptance of that which is different, instead of simply plowing ahead and assuming that all that is different is wrong. In many ways, the film could be actually aspiring to teach children (and some of the adults watching) lessons of tolerance for things such as race, gender, and sexuality.

Even with that, Cavuto decided that the controversy behind the animated penguins was because of the right-wing insistance that global warming, regardless of all the evidence pointing towards it, simply isn't happening. So congratulations, Mr. Cavuto. Congratulations on finding a controversy where there wasn't one. What's next? Flushed Away was merely a piece of Green Party propaganda about utopian societies? The Fox and the Hound was really just an animated Jungle Fever? Tenacious D and the Pick of Destiny is a disturbing story about two man-children, aspiring for their dreams of rock stardom in a communist manifesto? The Smurfs were a homosexual paradise?

Ok, ignore that last one. It's just too unrealistic, even for Cavuto and the rest of his friends at FOXNews.

A little bit country, a little bit Liberace

Not wanting to draw any ire from their viewers, a television talk show based out of Nashville has decided to "uninvite" Delta Burke and Leslie Jordan from appearing on their show. The reason behind this? They thought that the plays the two were promoting might be considered offensive to their viewership. Just what in these plays could be seen as offensive? The fact that the plays deal with gay subject matter.

Of course, the overall thought that is being brought out is that the shows might be a little too gay for the homeland of country music. In all fairness, a lot of things are too gay for Nashville, and the country as a whole. Heck, the notion of Eric McCormick is a little too gay for a number of people, and he isn't even gay (something he felt the need to force down people's throats time and time again during his tenure on Will & Grace).

The "uninviting" from the show under such auspicious circumstances does cause a few people's radar to go up nationwide, as people pretend to be outraged and appalled that anyone in Nashville could think that anything was too homosexually driven to appeal to their viewer base. Many of these people will, naturally, act very self-righteous about the whole episode until it fades away, and they can go back to loving homosexuals as long as they fit the caricatures they've been forced into for years. They'll have their homosexual heroes like Carson Kressley and Sean Hayes (or Ellen DeGeneres and Portia di Rossi for the lesbians out there), but will shudder at the notion of someone like Daniel Craig or Nicole Kidman possibly turning that page in their lives. Just shows how far this country really has to go on this particular issue.

But hey, at least we can rest easy knowing that the LPGA has been proactive on an issue of their own. Good for them on drug testing... although the chest hair should've been a tip-off. Still, it's not as bad as a cloned horse.

They'll make an opera out of anything

Well, not really, but one of the newest operas to gather some buzz doesn't help to dissuade that opinion. We've had operas about barbers, women named Carmen, and uncles from Boston. Now, we're being given an opera about that little-exploited subject, the news pundit. That's right, folks. Igor Keller has penned for us the majesty that is Mackris v. O'Reilly to fill that gap in our opera collection.

For those of you who luckily were able to avoid the tawdry details of the actual court case (which was settled, thankyouverymuch) about which the opera has been written, it's the story of the alleged sexual harassment experienced by Andrea Mackris, former FOXNews producer, at the hands of Bill O'Reilly, current FOXNews talking head. O'Reilly of course denied these allegations heavily, but that's not going to stop Keller. After all, he must be taken some levels of artistic license to be able to stretch anything that Bill O'Reilly may or may not have been involved with into a 31-part opera. Heck, the loofah/falafel incident doesn't even happen until part 27.

Of course, if this opera turns out to be a success, we might be able to expect that future theatrical endeavors will be undertaken to chronicle storied events from our recent past. For example, we can wait with baited breath to see Ain't No Bribe High Enough chronicling the Jack Abramoff story, or I'm Still Standing, featuring Karl Rove. We may also see new remakes of classic films, such as Never Say Never Again starring "Gin" Rummy, or Bill and Ted's Bogus Journey, with the title characters renamed George and Dick.

Wait a minute. Let's just stop this insanity before it gets out there too far. After all, do any of us really want to be forced to suffer through the new series on VH1's Celebreality, Political Fit Club? I know I don't.

Not funny

When recently asked whether or not he was going to miss mocking GDub and his cronies in the White House, Jon Stewart had a simple answer.

"No."

This may come as something of a surprise to a large number of people, especially given that Stewart has practically been able to reinvent his entire career by sitting behind The Daily Show newsdesk while doing exactly what he is saying he won't miss. I, on the other hand, tend to believe him, and the reasons why are very simple.

First off, every comedian likes to get new material. There's something about comedy that must remain vibrant, otherwise it dies. For example, the first three or four times you hear a good joke, you laugh. After twenty times, you need to move on, because it isn't as funny anymore. Consequently, eventually all the material possible about GDub and VeepCheney will be exhausted, and everything else will just be rehashing the same old standards. Some people think this has already happened.

Secondly, as incompetent and/or evil as they may be, nobody really wants to spend all of their time making fun of those that we're supposed to look up to. Sure, point out a failing here and there. Laugh at their misusage of the language. But, when one does that day after day after day, without fail, one almost has to start wondering if perhaps the joke isn't being played on the comedian instead. After all, nobody with that well-polished of a public relations department should be that open to being attacked for the things that they do or say. And yet, almost every day there's a new Bushism, or Snowism, or image of Cheney grilling kittens that comedians worldwide can attack.

Finally, Stewart knows what will happen to the show if there isn't a fairly regular change of hands for the seat of power. It's the same thing that will happen to this country (and, again, some are saying it's already too late). There will be moral degradation, and the overall malaise that will linger in everyone will make the telling of jokes impossible. Eventually, the only comedians that will be socially acceptable will be Carrot Top and Sinbad.

And, no matter how you look at it, that's just not funny.

Iron oxidized

Does anyone remember Mike Tyson? The guy that beat up Robin Givens, tried to chew off another boxer's ear, and allegedly threw a television while in prison on a number of different charges? The man with a voice higher than Michael Jackson's, but with anger issues severe enough that nobody would mention it to his face? The guy who formerly went around as "Iron" Mike... who is now coming out of retirement (of sorts) to box for charity.

This actually may not be the worst idea that Tyson has ever had. After all, people will pay huge fees to watch men years past their prime try to knock each other out (I'm looking at you, George Foreman). And the mere notion of being able to see Tyson on pay-per-view has many that remember his glory years salivating over their credit cards, just waiting to be able to tune in the channel. Nevermind that Tyson himself said that the fights are probably only going to last around four rounds (the same time it took Uwe Boll to knock out four critics) during a press conference, and that his first "opponent" will be his former sparring partner. That's right, folks. Cough up the dough to watch Tyson beat on the guy he used to practice with.

But the scariest part, and the part that shows Tyson as being almost out of touch enough to get a job in the Bush White House, is that "Iron" Mike is also entertaining the notion of taking on women during his "World Tour". Tyson himself seems to think that the years of whispering sweet nothings to his opponent while chewing on the cartilege of the ear are far behind him. And even though Tyson is hoping to face-off against women who are professional boxers, like Ann Wolfe (21-1, 15KO), he has to realize the dangerous ground he's already stepped into by merely suggesting it.

Although, if Tyson really does want to box against a woman, I've got a couple of names I'd throw his way. Tonya Harding and Courtney Love could probably do a bit of a number of the big guy, especially if Courtney proposed, or Tonya had a tire iron. As for the dream match-up, the one that would get my hard earned dollars? I'd pay to see Mike Tyson take on Janet Reno. We all know that Reno's got the reach, and a killer hook. Just ask Bill....

Doing it again

The controversy surrounding ABC's decision to air "The Path to 9/11" is still fresh in our minds. After all, the docudrama had more drama than docu in it, and plenty of facts were either ignored outright, or twisted in such a way that the Bush Administration didn't shoulder any of the blame for what happened. In fact, the apparent only cause of the events of 9/11 was the Clinton White House, at least according to scriptwriter Cyrus Nowrasteh.

Now there is word that Nowrasteh is being asked to pen his second script on the nature of 9/11, this time for Paramount Pictures and the always controversial Oliver Stone. Nowrasteh is being asked to adapt the book "Jawbreaker", a story which once again praises GDub while attacking Clinton for the fact that bin Laden is still a free man.

This should really come as no surprise. After all, Oliver Stone loves to find controversay and conspiracy wherever he can. He's also become the recent champion for America's resolve, as "World Trade Center" proves. The fact that he should make the attempt to combine those two ideals into one picture is not surprising in the least. Paramount is also not a shock as a willing partner, because, well, controversy brings in the viewers, generally. The studio should make money on this deal, and that's the biggest concern for most movie studios. Lastly, we have Nowrasteh, but the man has already changed history once with a screenplay, so why not keep going?

Looking into the future, I think we can safely assume that Nowrasteh will continue re-writing history from a conservative bent, including telling of how the fighting in Iraq and North Korea's nuclear potential can be traced back to the Clinton administration. Of course, after 2008, when GDub is replaced as President, I'm sure that will somehow be blamed on Clinton and the Democrats as well.

A silver lining

Ladies and gentlemen, one of the longest, darkest times in our storied history as a nation has finally come to a close. The sun is shining, children are rejoicing in the streets, and puppies and kittens are peacefully co-existing, all while we sip wine no longer made bitter.

Paris Hilton and Nicole Richie are friends again.

This news can only serve to bring joy to our hearts, as the two anorexia-fueled celebutantes can finally put aside the rough patch of their lives where they didn't acknowledge each other (to be fair, they were probably simply standing perpendicular to each other, consequently making them invisible to the naked eye) and move on to more important things, like the creation of Simple Life 6. I know that a great many of us were worried that this facsimile of a friendship was doomed when the two first started fighting, and we all had fears that neither girl would be able to keep their ice cubes down for too long, because of the anger boiling inside of them. But this tragedy has passed, and we as a nation can once again rejoice.

Of course, it is entirely possible that the Parisite started seeing the miniscule fan base she has crumbling around her, amidst DUIs and interesting baggies, and threw a bone at Nicole (not a real one... she wouldn't want to knock the poor girl down) to have the two reunite for another season of their insipid "reality" show. Nicole, somehow still the least talented and yet most famous Richie, of course accepted the offer, oddly seeing Paris as a giant walking hot dog covered in mustard.

Great. Now how am I going to get THAT image out of my head.

Saved by the what now?

Less than a day after we receive the glorious word that Paris Hilton has been officially charged for her DUI (no worries, she'll get the obligatory celebrity slap on the wrist), we are met with a much more distressing story. It appears that Dustin Diamond, best (perhaps only?) known for his years on Saved by the Bell as Screech Powers, allegedly has a sex tape.

Seriously? Screech is getting it on with anyone? That's almost as frightening of a concept as the thought that a government might take out ads to protect themselves from a film they don't find funny.

What? That happened too?

Ok... let's look at this a little more closely. Sure, DD has some clout. After all, he is slightly more famous than the majority of people to come out of Saturday morning programming. We'll ignore the fact that most Saturday morning programming, at least traditionally, has been cartoons for years. So DD might actually be able to translate his "fame" into getting some nooky. But really, what women would allow him to tape it? Or engage in the acts that are (supposedly) taking place on the tape?

This could all be an extension of DD's pitiful plea from earlier in the year, where he begged people to buy t-shirts from him in an attempt to save his house from foreclosure. After all, when the biggest thing on your resume is almost ten years of Saved by the Bell, wouldn't you try and publicize a sex tape, to try and do something to shed your geeky image? It's not like he's Dennis Haskins, who has shots on his IMDb page that show him looking a bit like a child pornographer.

And to think, Elizabeth Berkley already jumped this shark with Showgirls.

Harsh criticism

Uwe Boll, that misunderstood cinematic genius, recently followed through on his threats. Back in June, Boll challenged critics who had spoken badly about his films to step into a boxing ring with him. Four critics responded, and boxed Boll in what they believed to be a publicity stunt.

A short time later, after the dust had cleared, Boll had knocked out all four, and the "publicity stunt" was unveiled as an obviously deranged individual attacking his harshest critics in the only way he knew how.

Who knew that German directors had that much in common with American Presidents?

But I digress. Boll, like a good percentage of filmmakers, has been panned by the critics. His films tend to be sloppy and faithless translations of video games; games that, while popular, don't truly carry enough of a plot within themselves to deserve a full feature film. This is part of the nature of games. Yes, there are those rare few that are rich with story and characterization, and can be translated, at least partially, onto the big screen. However, most should be avoided, as surely as one would avoid that last piece of bread that somehow got wedged into the back of the fridge weeks ago. They were fresh at the time of their initial release, but trying to put them into a new package only showcases the mold that has grown on the story.

That being said, in the hands of a skilled director, even the oldest story can be made new and receive that vital influx of life it needs to appeal to any audience, let alone a new one. As we've recently learned, the only thing that Boll is truly skilled at is boxing against people that have no actual training in the sport (he does). He also decided to take out his anger over the bad reviews against a bunch of internet critics, including one 17 year-old kid. Somehow, this doesn't fill me with confidence that he'll be able to film something better than House of the Dead ever in his lifetime.

The most telling piece of the entire story would have to be the quote issued by an overly smug Boll after everything was said and done. "Now they are brain dead and they will like my movies," the director stated. That pretty much admits the extent of Boll's talents. He creates movies that only the brain dead can truly enjoy, because anyone with higher level thinking will realize schlock when they see it, and will avoid such films like a special brand of plague.

The problem is that Boll even overestimates himself here. The brain dead will watch movies directed by the Wayans brothers, but even they'll pass on Uwe Boll. There are levels to what even zombies can put up with.

Boll has been mentioned in the same breath as Ed Wood in times past. The problem with that comparison is that Ed Wood, while a horrible director, had a vision that was all his own, and had a certain level of genius about him. Ed Wood's films can even be watchable, in the right mood. The right mood for watching a Uwe Boll film is catatonic... and even that isn't quite bad enough.

So cheers, "Raging" Boll. Maybe you've found a new career people won't immediately scoff at.

Just say... um... uh....

Looks like Keith Richards may be off the drugs, finally. According to an interview he recently gave, the Rolling Stone is going to roll less frequently than in the past. The reason behind his sudden change?

The drugs nowadays are too weak for his system.

That's right. Richards feels that dealers and chemists have weakened drugs to the point where there's almost no point in taking them. While there are some drugs that may be strong enough for a man now made up of mostly some sort of illegal narcotic, he avoids those because they "mess with the brain."

Of course, after his recent concussion, Mr. Richards had no qualms against using morphine, and made attempts to get more from the night nurse. Being that he is still a celebrity, and given that he probably died at least ten years ago, but hasn't noticed due to the drugs in his system, I'm sure the nurse gave him the satisfaction he was looking for.

In a lot of ways, however, Keith Richards claiming that drugs are too weak would be kind of like Steve Forbes claiming that the dollar isn't worth as much. They may actually have a point, but there perspective is going to be drastically different from the average person who's never had as much of the substance that they're talking about.

What's next? Is Steven Tyler going to complain about collagen? Or Gene Simmons bemoan the lack of good tongues in the industry?

Butt Out

After yesterday's revelation that GDub will be hosting meetings between himself and the president of Kazakhstan over the character Borat, we receive news from the neighbor to the north about another politician a little overly concerned with the actions of a celebrity. For those of you that have missed it, Sean Penn caused a bit of a ruckus when he lit up a cigarette during a press conference for his new film.

The problem? Penn was in Ontario, and Ontario just celebrated the completion of its first 100 days as a Smoke-Free Province, banning all smoking indoors. This has led to Health Promotion Minister Jim Watson to practically demand that Penn be ticketed for his offense.

Watson, of course, feels that Penn hasn't even been given a warning on this due to his nature as a celebrity, even if, for years, his biggest claim to fame was having married Madonna. Watson doesn't feel that celebrities should be treated differently from average people, and this banner is being carried further by Dr. Sheela Basrur, who is asking for an investigation into whether or not Penn was made aware of the law, and, if so, why the law wasn't enforced in his case. Basrur also points out that the average fine is slightly over $100.

Here's the catch, though. By raising a big stink over this whole mess, the people in question who simply want Sean Penn to be treated as a normal person are elevating his level of celebrity more than he could do by reshooting I Am Sam. The authorities in question, if they really want to keep him from getting special treatment, should mail a bill to his place of residence (or his agent), and do so in that typically Canadian non-threatening manner. Then, when Penn sees the fine, laughs about it, and uses it as a match to light his next cigarette, they can pretend to get very up in arms before sending him another ticket. This process should repeat endlessly until either a) the politicians get bored, or b) the ticket gets paid.

Wait a minute. How did Sean Penn get big enough on the radar for people to even notice he was inside, let alone smoking?

Crikey

In a world swimming with the overly tedious reporting regarding Rosie O'Donnell returning to television with The View, Katie Couric taking over an evening news cast, and the first images of the borrowed child that Tom Cruis-azy is trying to pass off as Suri, it's nice to know that there's some sanity left.

Who would've expected that the sanity would come from the camp of the Crocodile Hunter. For those that somehow escaped the news, Steve Irwin was killed while filming a segment with some stingrays for a new show. Of course, this means that his death has been captured on video, and people are clamoring for its release.

The big question is, "Why do people want to see this?" Are we that fascinated with the death of celebrities that we want to watch a man in his final moments? Thankfully, Irwin's manager was recently on Larry King and practically begged, once the video was released by the police from their investigation, that it be destroyed, never to see the light of day. Of course, someone somewhere is going to end up getting ahold of a bootleg, and "One Barb in Irwin" will end up outselling "One Night in Paris" handily. After all, if there are "Faces of Death" films (and a full series of them), then of course there's going to be interest in what could quickly amount to being a snuff film.

Ultimately, there are people who also believe that Irwin was completely guilt free in this exchange, when it should be pointed out that he has a history of prodding animals that were otherwise docile into a state of aggression, all for the benefit of the camera. The scariest thing of all is that Irwin was always so willing to pump out the notion about the danger he was in while dealing with these creatures, he would probably be one of the first ones to suggest mass producing the video of his demise.

Crikey indeed.

Greed leads to the Dark Side

While George Lucas is no stranger to the concept of merchandising in relation to the Star Wars universe, it does seem odd that, for a story that's "finished", there's going to be more new material, being spearheaded by Lucasfilm itself. As we close in on the 30th anniversary of Star Wars, we will soon be met with a cartoon series (basically Episode 2.5) and a new video game (Episode 3.5).

It should come as no surprise that Lucas is willing to keep the money machine rolling. Anyone who hasn't successfully purged Episode One from their brains knows that, when the cash starts coming in, artistic integrity can start to slip. While the original Star Wars trilogy is not amongst the best films ever made, or even the best films of their respective years, there is something about the classic storylines and character models that works. The fact that it was played on a somewhat low-budget scale with stilted acting performances somehow adds to the charm. And yet, when the time came to start everyone thinking about a revival of the universe (around, oh, ten years ago with the "special editions"), Lucas followed the money and made the original movies splashier and, oddly enough, less appealing. Of course, this is also a man who said that the original versions of the films would never be available again, and is now releasing them on DVD later this year.

Of course, Star Wars fans worldwide will, naturally, decry Lucasfilm and the fact that they are once again being exploited for their money, simply to receive a subpar product as the end result. However, even in the face of that, they'll churn over their hard earned dollars for the chance to get another piece of information about the "galaxy far far away", and will use information gathered therein to fuel even more late-night discussions over Funyuns and Mountain Dew.

Possibly one of the most irritating things about this whole mess is that, when you boil it all down, Star Wars was something of a morality tale. The Force was controlled by our emotions, and, well, positive emotions and actions led to walking the Light Side, while negative emotions and actions forced you down the Dark Side. In another blatant money grab, George Lucas is making himself more and more like Anakin Skywalker everyday. And no, I'm not talking cherubic (yet thoroughly annoying) Anakin from Episode One. I'm talking mopey and overacted Anakin from Episode Three. Lucas is only a few steps away from slaughtering Jedi children with his desire for the quick buck, and, regardless of what he's said on the matter, I'm sure it's only a matter of time before Episodes 7-9 are shoved down our throats.

And somehow, like the well-trained droids that we are, we'll answer the call and pony up the dough. Because, when it's all said and done, nobody wants to be choked at a distance by George Lucas.

Taking a stand

Congratulations, Nicole Kidman! And congratulations to the 84 others that signed the ad with you! You've taken a difficult stand in light of recent world events.

Wait a minute. Celebrities are getting together to take out ads in The Los Angeles Times decrying terrorism, and this becomes news? Even worse, they're getting pats on the back because of their views?

Come on, people. First off, did we really need celebritites to tell us that terrorism is bad? I would've thought by now that we could figure that little piece of information out for ourselves. Secondly, should we really be complimenting (or, at the very least, acknowledging) them for the statement? After all, terrorism is bad is kind of like saying that drinking too much can lead to severe problems. Am I right, Mr. Gibson?

Maybe I'm being a little hasty. After all, maybe what the world needs now is celebrities, sweet celebrities, as they tell us what is harmful and dangerous. And, gosh darnit, if Nicole Kidman tells me that terrorism is bad, then I have no choice but to blindly agree.

I mean, it's not like they told me that Northwest Airlines is delivering a bit of a slap in the face to employees who may be about to lose their jobs. Now THAT would be going out on a limb, which, by the way, provides an excellent vantage point for Dumpster scouting missions.