I missed last night's premiere of the newly minted Syfy Channel's Warehouse 13 -- though judging by Ken Tucker's take, I didn't miss much -- in favor of catching up with a couple of DVR'd episodes of Kings. You remember Kings, don't you? That fantastic NBC show that reconceptualizes and recontexualizes the story of David, he who slew Goliath? The one that has Ian McShane melting a hole through the screen with sheer acting luminescence? The one nobody watched and is now being unceremoniously burned off on Saturday nights?
That Kings. So, as I was sitting there, basking in the plummy, almost Arthurian dialogue and the stentorian production design, I had an epiphany: Why doesn't Syfy pick up Kings? Given that part of their whole name-change raison d'etre is to be able to program beyond the sci-fi spectrum, they could do far worse than roll the dice on a show as well-produced as this one.
Yes, I know, there is the whole "Kings had less viewers than my honeymoon video" problem. I firmly believe that isn't the show's fault; it's NBC's. They had no idea how to market Kings, so they mismarketed it: all those mysterious butterfly posters and trailers that told you nothing about the show besides that it was pretty and it had McShane in nice suits. Was it science fiction? An alternate reality? A soap opera? All of the above? John Rogers, executive producer of TNT's Leverage, summed up the misfire -- and missed opportunity -- quite succinctly: "After years of the cultural Right bitching and moaning about how Hollywood doesn't provide for them, NBC could have gone to every evangelical church in America and said 'We're serializing the story of King David in a modern, very relatable way. Here you go, a multi-million dollar series, in prime time, based on a Bible story. You're frikkin' welcome.'"
That's still money left on the table, Syfy. Money that could be yours. The stink of failure would fade, in time, and you'd be left with one of the best shows on television, one that could fill the sucking vacuum left by Battlestar Galactica, and you could sell those DVD sets to church congregations, Sunday schools, and synagogues until kingdom come.
Just look at this clip; listen to the words, watch McShane work like the devil himself, and wonder why you don't deserve more of this on TV:
Did you know about Kings while it was on? Would you watch it if someone levied some confidence behind it?
Bad news for cabbies: As of now, Kelly Bensimon is the only cast member slated to return to season 3 of Real Housewives of New York, which means we can expect more inane arguments, childish pillow fights and dopey middle-of-5th-Avenue-what-the-heck-is-she-doing? jogging sessions.
Of course, this is not to say the other five housewives -- yes, I'm counting Simon -- won't sign on for an additional season (word is the ladies are just holding out for more cash). But I find it interesting that Kelly would be the first on board, since her image was transformed from relatively respected fashionista to self-important crazy-face thanks to the show. Sure, she'll get the opportunity to redeem herself with another season, but come on, Kelly. There's a reason Paula Abdul, god bless her, only filmed one season of Hey Paula. You should really just run away when you still can! Just not in the middle of the street, m'kay?
But the whole casting sitch has also made me wonder: Which housewife could I not live without? If Bravo could only cast only one of the six -- yes, I'm counting Simon again -- who would I choose? The easy answer is fan favorite Bethenny, since the skinny girl brings a certain amount of refreshing soberness to an otherwise bonkers cast. But you know what? I'm going to go with Ramona (gasp!). Because love her or hate her, what would the show be like without her oh-so-offensive (sometimes) unintentional insults? Or her standing-in-place dancing to mysterious, inaudible music? Or her embarrassed, dying-slowly-inside daughter?
Ask Jeeves probably won't be able to answer with certainty. Nor will anyone on Yahoo Answers or Google, where 'Is Jennifer Hudson pregnant?' ranked as the No. 2 search term for at least an hour yesterday. But if you're trying to find out whether or not Jennifer Hudson has a bun in the proverbial oven—which you clearly are—your best bet is to simply watch Hudson's performance of "Will You Be There" at Michael Jackson's memorial today (we've embedded the clip below, and provided photographic evidence at left). Watch for yourself and make your best guess: Is she pregnant? Or did she stuff a beach ball beneath her dress before stepping on stage? Or did she eat lunch at what I could only imagine was the best restaurant ever? (For the record, the singer herself has to date withheld comment on her pregnancy status, although a family friend spilled the beans about a baby shower held in Hudson's honor at the end of May.)
Reading the headlines this morning, I learned there's currently a debate raging in Austria over which man inspired Sacha Baron Cohen's flamboyant fashion journalist Bruno: Entertainer Alfons Haider or fashion journalist Adi Weiss. Of course, we don't know if either of these men encouraged Cohen to sport a mohawk way back in 2003, when he first debuted the character on Da Ali G Show, but I think the more important question is: Why would anyone want to be the real-life Brüno? Both Haider and Weiss appear to be flattered by the comparison, whether or not they believe they truly are the inspiration. I can only imagine that's because they haven't seen the film yet. For those of us who have been privy to a screening, we know that Cohen's character is dim-witted and shallow, to say the least, however hilarious and fashionable he might be.
Not that this sort of debate is anything new. We saw the same thing back in 2006, when a Turkish man demanded Cohen acknowledge him as the inspiration for the anti-Semitic, misogynistic Borat. So, nonetheless, I have no choice but to ask: Vassup with these fellas, PopWatchers? Would you like to be compared to Cohen's outlandish characters? And do you even care who Cohen's real-life inspiration was (really, I don't)?
Like everyone else in the world, as soon as I found out that Michael Jackson had passed away, I knew the ensuing weeks would be a circus. Speculation about everything from the late singer's estate to the late singer's face would run rampant, leading people to wonder such crazy things as, What would happen to his kids? To his chimp? To his nose?
But I was not prepared to address the question that some are currently posing: Is Michael Jackson's ghost haunting Neverland? Those who support said theory would point you to Exhibit A) a shadow that's seen walking across a room at the end of the hallway during Larry King's interview with Jermaine Jackson (see embedded video below). I'm not quite a believer in things that go bump in the night, so I'm going to guess that the image was simply a cameraman's shadow. After all, if it were Michael, wouldn't he be moonwalking across the room? And emitting some sort of falsetto ghost wail?
Do you believe, PopWatchers? Is Neverland just creepy enough to warrant a spook?
No, I'm not talking about some sort of epic Gandalf-Saruman-esque showdown (as awesome as it would be to watch Merlin fight himself). I'm talking about the epic fight for supremacy that's currently going on in my imagination between Colin Morgan -- the actor portraying the wizard in the new Merlin miniseries, airing tonight at 8 p.m. on NBC -- and Sam Neil, the actor who expertly stepped into Merlin's magical shoes more than a decade ago.
Sure, 1998's Merlin already has the advantage, being that it's my favorite miniseries of all time, and I have yet to see tonight's Merlin. But my colleague Adam Markovitz has made a strong case for Morgan in his B+ review of the miniseries, which began last Sunday: "There's enough sword-clanging action -- not to mention homoerotic tension -- to keep viewers happily entertained for a spell."
So let's weigh their pros and cons. Morgan's pros: 1) He's a looker, 2) Re-imagined as a youngster, Merlin is likely more productive in night-time battle, considering his ability to go to bed after 8 pm. Cons: 1) Battling at dawn proves more difficult, without chalices full of Red Bull, and 2) I can't seem to get behind a character that has strayed so much from its original form (blasphemy!). Now, let's look at Neil's Merlin. Pros: 1) He's awesome, 2) He's guides Arthur, defeats Mab, and gets the girl all on his own, and 3) He's awesome. Cons: Well, I'll let you guys fill in the cons on this one, because I really can't think of any!
Who wins the battle for supremacy, folks? And will you be watching Merlin tonight?
It would be difficult to sum up Michael Jackson's life in 600 words alone, but the editors of SMITH magazine are inviting readers to write epitaphs for the late singer in just six words. The magazine -- which has won fans for its six-word memoir compilations -- is holding a contest for the three readers who can compose the best "Jackson 6." My personal favorite thus far? Mary Elizabeth Williams' "From ABC to PYT to RIP."
So PopWatchers, we want to know: What will you be submitting to SMITH magazine? What six words do you feel represent Jackson's life? Do you think it's even possible to sum up a life in six words? And what's your favorite tribute to the singer that you've seen so far?
I'll start this post with the requisite SPOILER ALERT for those of you who haven't seen this weekend's weepy cancer-centric Jodi Picoult adaptation. But for those of you who have, you might understand why faithful devotees of the novel are outraged by the Nick Cassavetes-directed film. Outraged enough that at one point, fans even started a Facebook group called "Save My Sister's Keeper!!"
So what's the big deal? Why, the film adaptation boasts a completely different ending than the book. Though the book ends on a somber note, killing off a character in an unexpected manner, the movie takes on a decidedly more Hollywood-esque ending, keeping said character alive. Even Picoult herself felt iffy about the change: "Having the ending changed would certainly not have been my choice. I
wrote the ending very intentionally because I wanted to leave the
reader with a certain message. And changing that ending changes that
message. However, I am excited to see the movie and to judge it on its
strengths."
Now, screenwriter Jeremy Leven wouldn't be the only scriptwriter who has taken liberties with book adaptations. Even Peter Jackson, the writer/director obsessed with staying faithful to J.R.R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings saga, condensed and added new material to his film. But it's a bold move to change an entire ending of an adaptation, especially considering that Picoult's novel boasts such a large following.
So if you were Leven, PopWatchers, would you have changed the ending in the film? For those of you who have seen it, were you happy with the bold choice, or would you have preferred the movie to have stayed 100 percent faithful? And what's the most egregious change you've ever seen in an adaptation?
While watching the street protests in Iran these past two
weeks -- turns out more votes were cast in 50 cities in the June 12 presidential
election than the actual number of Iranians who live there -- I kept asking myself the
same question. Why does this sound so familiar? Where have I seen it
before? And then it hit me. Substitute a fat, blond comedian (with a
skinny, annoying sidekick) for Mir-Hossein Mousavi, and you’ve pretty
much got the plot of Black Sheep, the terrible 1996 Chris Farley-David Spade comedy about a hijinks-filled gubernatorial campaign in the state of Washington.
In Black Sheep,
Farley plays Mike Donnelly, doltish younger brother of politician Al
Donnelly (Tim Matheson) who keeps making embarrassing gaffes on the
campaign trail (“He’s Roger Clinton, Billy Carter, and the whole Reagan
family rolled into one,” the Ahmadinejad-like incumbent governor
describes him). But after his brother gets defeated at the polls,
Farley’s character figures out the election has been rigged when he
notices -- just like the Guardian Council admitted in Iran this
weekend! -- that more votes were counted in some cities than the actual
number of Washingtonians. With the help of a wacko Vietnam
veteran-turned-survivalist (Gary Busey), Farley and Spade crash the
falsely relected Governor’s victory speech and stage an angry protest
that ultimately leads to the reversal of the election, making Tim
Matheson governor.
Eerily similar, no? We’re not sure what Black Sheep
can tell us about how things will turn out in Iran, but it’s comforting
proof of something I have long suspected: That nothing, great or small,
ever happens on this planet that Hollywood hasn’t already turned into a
crappy movie. What do you think, PopWatchers? What other bad movies
remind you of current events?
The trailer for the long-delayed Rachel McAdams-Eric Bana weepie The Time
Traveler's Wife has finally surfaced, and it essentially looks like The Notebook crossed with Benjamin Button. Something else about it struck me as well: This is the first time Rachel McAdams has been front-and-center in a movie in forever.
It wasn't that long ago (2005, to be exact) when it seemed McAdams was destined to be one of the biggest stars on the planet. She had back-to-back mega-successes Mean Girls, The Notebook, and Wedding Crashers. Even her lower-profile flicks like Red Eye and The Family Stone found sizable audiences. So what did she do to capitalize on that momentum? Well...not a whole lot. She took two years off, and then returned for smaller parts in two little-seen, lukewarmly reviewed indies (Married Life and The Lucky Ones). She was in State of Play earlier this year, but in more of a supporting role.
I understand and respect her decision to shy away from the spotlight and take time off. But I also wonder if by doing so she let her moment pass her by. Hollywood is fickle. Actresses are deemed to be "the next big thing" every day. When that happens, there really has to be a sense of urgency to strike while the iron is hot and land those high-profile roles. So McAdams didn't want to be the next Julia Roberts or Reese Witherspoon. Fine. She could have at least found an interesting and challenging lead role in a smaller indie film, like what Anne Hathaway did (superbly) with Rachel Getting Married.
That said, McAdams is just 30 years old. She's got plenty of time ahead of her. And in a day and age when overexposure stalls/kills careers left and right (look no further than her Sherlock Holmes costar Jude Law), I am glad she is something of a mystery. I just hope her career is still on the incline. Much seems to be riding on the success of The Time Traveler's Wife. (She's also got Sherlock Holmes this Christmas, but that's not necessarily her movie, either.)
What are your feelings on Rachel McAdams, PopWatchers? Are you ready to welcome her back? Do you also wish her career had turned out a little differently? And are you planning on The Time Traveler's Wife? Watch the trailer and share your thoughts on all accounts.
