Playboy founder and girl-next-door wrangler Hugh Hefner has been openly tweeting his feelings about the end of his relationship with Crystal Harris — the woman he was all set to marry until a couple days ago. Last night, in a move which could either be interpreted as a lovably droll joke or a surprisingly vicious spurned-lover kiss-off, Hefner tweeted: “Recent events call for a special sticker on the July cover. Look for it on newsstands.” Y’see, Crystal is actually on the cover of the July issue of Playboy… with a headline that proclaims, “Introducing Mrs. Crystal Hefner.” Commence awkward collar pulls, America! READ FULL STORY
Tag: Nudity (81-90 of 141)
The saga of King Arthur and his round furniture-loving knights has been done to death — so it’s no surprise that Starz’s new series, Camelot, changes a few key details in an attempt to inject new life into the story. While some of those tweaks are welcome (hello, Joseph Fiennes as a badass, baldheaded Merlin) others might end up rubbing Arthurites the wrong way. Here are the four main ways Camelot switches things up: READ FULL STORY
The New York Times reports today. And indeed, the unflinchingly realistic portrait of middle-class high school partiers — filled with unapologetic sex, booze, and drugs (the title itself refers to rolling papers for joints) — surely was made to court controversy. A stateside version of the edgy British sensation of the same name, it’s pretty much designed to finally make a splash in the scripted-series arena for MTV, no stranger to controversy. The Hard Times of R.J. Berger, another high-school-set show, tried and failed at the same trick — in my opinion, because it was trying too hard to be crude (its premise revolves around its title character’s ample endowment) while neglecting to add any real heart. Skins is more “dangerous” because, like its predecessor, it has soul, with well-rounded characters whose problems are, while a little melodramatic, relatable at their core (especially if you give them a chance beyond the overwrought pilot episode). Fans could actually get invested in this thing and pay attention to all the rampant naughtiness — indeed, an impressive 3.3 million tuned in for its premiere this week.MTV execs are scrutinizing upcoming episodes of their racy new teen-drama hit Skins to ensure they don’t violate child pornography laws,
It’s also dangerous — legally — because the show cast kids as kids. READ FULL STORY
If you noticed a slight uptick in nudity on public transit yesterday, thank Improv Everywhere and their annual No Pants Subway Ride, now in its 10th hit year! Who hasn’t wanted to press his or her bare flesh against a pole or seat on the subway?
This year, participants in more than 50 cities in 24 countries dared to bare their lower halves, and while the sight of people’s winterlegs doesn’t bug me at all, the idea that some woman in Australia touched her bare feet to the floor of a bus seriously gives me the willies. Enjoy your bird-flu-AIDS-cancer-of-the-foot, ma’am. (Unless buses in Australia are way, way cleaner than buses in the U.S.? Still. Shudder.)
Did you strip down this weekend, PopWatchers? And, just because, here’s the YTMND for Heed! Pants! Now! from So I Married an Axe Murderer. [makes noise, duh]
Image: Katie Sokoler
The always lovely, effortlessly cool Jane Lynch was asked over the weekend to weigh in on the whole GQ kneesock/lollipop flap. She started off talking sense, tactfully noting that impressionable young girls had no business flipping through a men’s magazine and that ultimately it was a parent’s responsibility to monitor what his or her children are exposed to in the house. Check and check. But then the record scratched, as Lynch was prodded by the Extra reporter to discuss how the Glee spread might effect young girls and their vulnerable body image: “I think whenever you put a woman scantily clad in underwear,” said Lynch, “it makes a lot of other girls and women feel badly about themselves, so it should be done with great consciousness.”
Oh for the love of … and women who don’t support Sarah Palin’s politics are just jealous of the woman’s pretty chestnut hair and natural curves. The reason the GQ photo shoot was a bust was not because it was too sexy, or too scandalous. Those pictures of soft-porn locker-room fun didn’t make me feel bad about my thighs. Or the fact that I don’t wear pigtails and scallop-edged baby pink training bras.
The main reason the shoot failed was that it was uninteresting, which is the opposite takeaway of the beloved show that celebrates eccentricity and verve. Lea Michelle sucking on a blow pop was the equivalent of the smartest, raddest girl in school — the Tina Fey of the junior class — dressing up as a sexy nurse or a sexy teacher or a sexy panda bear for Halloween. It was unoriginal. It made Dianna Agron and Lea Michele look silly and common, though Agron did a beautiful job reminding all of us that her GQ persona bears little resemblance to her real-world self. Let’s please not turn this whole mess into a statement of priggish American parents and insecure girls and women. Instead let’s expect more from the women we love, and the magazines, including Entertainment Weekly, who cover them. READ FULL STORY
The Internet is abuzz with film fans (and men who like to think they saw Jessica Alba naked) debating whether CGI nude scenes are bad for movies after the Daily Mail reported that Jessica Alba didn’t actually go nude for her shower scene in Machete. Instead, as shown here, she filmed it wearing white undergarments, which were digitally deleted in post-production. (UPDATE: Alba’s publicist has released the following statement to EW: “Jessica has been steadfast in her resolve not to appear nude in films from the beginning of her career. The decision to digitally remove the underwear from the shower scene in Machete was one she and Robert Rodriguez made together, which would serve his vision for the film, as well as honor her personal convictions regarding nudity. She is very proud of the film and stands by the creative decisions she and Robert made about this scene.”) There are a couple interesting discussions here:
• Over on /Film, the debate is whether CGI nude scenes can end up detracting from performances when nudity is not merely being used to sell some tickets (as is arguably the case with Machete). As Germain Lussier theorizes, “The real case against CGI is when it takes away nudity where it’s appropriate for the subject matter. If an actress like Kate Winslet can just ask James Cameron to make her nude through CGI in Titanic, are we as an audience really experiencing the newly found openness and sexual deviance those characters are experiencing? No, we’re not, and it will come across in the actors’ portrayals. There’s a huge different between acting naked and just being naked. It’s very much like the new technology where CGI can make actors any weight or body shape they need to be. That’s all fine and well, but what about performance and really getting into a role?” I understand what Lussier is trying to say, but I do think it’s easier for an actress to imagine what it’s like to lay or stand naked in front of a man for the first time (when she’s probably only wearing a bra and panties in front of a film crew) than for, say, Adrien Brody and Christian Bale to go through an entire movie pretending they’re malnourished. (Though, of course, one could argue that a drastic weight loss is actually dangerous to an actor’s health, so who are we to say they should go Method?) I think it’s more about the effect it has on the audience if they find out about the CGI, regardless of whether it was a gratuitous shot or key to the plot: READ FULL STORY
- 'Star Wars VII' trailer debuts this weekend
- AMAs 2014 ratings big, but down from '13
- 'Constantine' production halted by NBC
- Oscar Isaac as 'X-Men: Apocalypse' villain
- Katy Perry set for Super Bowl halftime show
- Sting to join Broadway cast of 'Last Ship'
- Chris Colfer: More Land of Stories books
- American Music Awards winners are...
- Natalie Dormer: More 'Thrones' male nudity
- Tina Fey-produced series to Netflix from NBC