Excitement!

I'm not a DC Comics person. I mean, I've seen all of the Batman movies, and until this season I watched Smallville (for some reason, about 5 episodes in, I just couldn't take it), but I was raised as a Marvel Comics girl. Which sounds kind of...intense, but for me, at age 10, that shit was serious. I had no patience for multi-verses and numbered Earths and super-alien boy scouts. I was too busy with alternate realities (but it was only one at a time, which is different), race- and/or sexuality-based allegory, and wanting to be Jubilee when I grew up.

Seriously. She was awesome. And underrated. And despite what a friend of mine asserted in college, she didn't "just shoot pretty lights out of her hands." She shot dangerous explosions out of her hands. Dangerous explosions that also happened to be pretty. But were also dangerous.

Anyway, that's not the point. The point is, though I spent my youth preaching the Evils of DC (except Batman, who I always thought seemed kind of awesome), I can acknowledge when they do something cool.

This is cool.

Wonder Woman's new costume kind of rocks. TLo pointed out that this is less iconic than her previous costumes, which (as far as I know) were all variations and updates on her orginal Star-Spangled look, but they were also essentially strapless bathing suits. You can't stem the tide of evil surging over your city/town/municipality in a strapless bathing suit. I'm fairly certain you can't even swim in a strapless bathing suit.

I think it's bad-ass. And the answer to "how does she keep her boobs for literally flying in the face of evil?" is "straps." Instead of "prayer." Or "decency laws."

Oh- and the thing with the hairspray? Fantastic!

My deep and abiding love for Buffy the Vampire Slayer is well documented, by which I mean "is on my Facebook page." I love the show, I love the comics, and at some point I'll probably start a semi-tragic collection of Buffy-related memorabilia and novelty items. Last night, that love was tested like never before.

Last night, I watched the Buffy movie for the first time in seven years.

Oh y'all. Have you watched this movie lately? It's ridiculous. Like super-ridiculous. Paul Rubens spends like, 30 minutes dying. Someone apparently decided that really slow front walkovers were totally practical moves when fighting for your life. Oh, and the vampires fly. Well, more accurately, the float. Not in fights. Mostly just to freak people out. Or help with awesome jump-shots.

I just want to make sure you caught that last part: a vampire uses his super-powers to play varsity basketball. Against Ben Affleck. Which is neither here nor there, but it seemed worth mentioning.

You need to go watch this movie. Right now.

If you won't do it for me, do it for Kristy Swanson.

Just...why?

Ok, this is officially TOO MUCH Project Runway. Season 8, which is premeiring on Lifetime on July 29, is the show's third season in the last year (season 6 premiered August 20, 2009 - I checked). That's a lot of dresses.

And not only is Lifetime throwing as many seasons at you as they can, but they're upping the show to 90 minutes. Ninety.

Look, I love Tim Gunn. I do. Deeply. And Nina Garcia is Captain Fantastico-Amazing. But that's a lot of time. I could do a lot with 90 minutes a week. Like cook. Or clean. Or write. Or watch an episode-and-a-half of Snapped.

If the show maintained its previous levels of awesome I might not mind as much. I mean, I still enjoy the show, and some of the season 7 designers were fun to watch, but they were leaving out all kinds of drama. For example, did you know that Tim and Emilio (he of the ridiculous initial print) got in fights like ALL THE TIME. Why cut that? Shit like that is the whole point of the show. I mean yes, the clothes are important too, but if that was all that mattered people would just skip to the runway show. The catty interpersonal stuff is what makes the middle 40 ( well, 70 now) minutes watchable.

My biggest issue is the show's "celebrity guests". Last season, they repeatedly fell on this crutch of having a super-special celebrity, and it’s ...HEIDI! Or, the designers are going to meet a fabulous and famous American designer and it’s MICHAEL! And you know what, Project Runway? That’s some sad, sad shit. For god’s sake even The Fashion Show (which was kind of painful) got Lady Gaga- couldn’t you manage Ke$ha (I mean, don't actually try and get Ke$ha. Please. Seriously.)? Or some CW actresses? Though even when they had Jessica Alba as a judge, they still had everyone design a dress for Heidi. When you get famous people in there, use them.

Or, even better, embrace your inherent Lifetime-ness. Call upon the networks existing stable of actress - they could dress Tori Spelling in modern re-imaginings of the costumes from Mother, May I Sleep With Danger. There could be a whole challenge inspired by the works of Kellie Martin. Some one could make a milk carton-shaped dress. I'd watch the hell out of that. Come on, Lifetime – make it happen.

Sometimes it's just best not to think about it

Something just occurred to me.

You know, in "Be Our Guest" (from Beauty and the Beast) when Lumiere says the food is delicious, and if you don't believe him you should "ask the dishes?"

That's actually super gross.

And then, of course, there's the whole "servant who's not serving" bridge, which is disconcerting for entirely different, more social justice-y, reasons.

There's something missing in my life

I've realized that there's a shortage of giant, ridiculous/amazing hats in my life. Royal Ascot just ended on Saturday, and the collection of giant British hats was... look, one of these things had a FACE. In the hat. One was a cheese plate. One seemed to be a LEGO Big Ben. It's freaking awesome. If you haven't seen photos, this GFY post and these TLo posts have some great rundowns.

I need an occasion to wear a giant (preferably LEGO) hat. But the thing is, I really have no interest in going to a horse race (since the only horse races I know anything about are Royal Ascot and the Kentucky Derby, in my mind all horse races feature people in giant hats. I know this is probably not true, but I like my way better). I mean, I can barely get myself to go to the freaking farmer's market. Giant events are not in my future. And I can't exactly mix myself a gin & tonic and put on a crazy hat to watch AbFab DVDs in my living room.

Actually, that sounds kind of awesome.

Except instead of gin & tonic I should probably do wine. Because then, if I just toss some goat cheese on a cracker, suddenly it's not getting smashed on my couch; it's being classy.

All I'll need is a big-ass piece of tulle, some ribbon, and a dream.


And the wine. Mustn't forget the wine.

Can this please be a thing?

So, over the past few weeks, I've been seeing this ad on BBC America:



Fables is a completely fantastic comic, and unlike almost so many other comics that I've seen lately that attempt to bring back fairy tale characters, it's not just about drawing the characters so as to make it seem like their suddenly ginormous boobs are going to leap free at any second. It's just about people trying to manage a city. And the people include Snow White. And the city is kind of magic. And there's a war. And a possible rebellion. Look, a lot goes on. You should just read it. And then fall in love with it. And then make everyone you know read it.

Here's my question, though: could this be about testing the waters for an adaptation? I have absolutely zero in the realm of insider knowledge, so this is just speculation fueled by hope, but it would kind of make sense. Comic book adaptations are becoming more and more widespread, and with the upcoming (hopefully awesome) Scott Pilgrim vs. World and the recent (supposedly terrible) Jonah Hex they're spreading past superheroes more and more. AMC is making zombie-comic extraordinaire The Walking Dead in to a TV show right now, so why not Fables? Because I would watch that. I would watch that twice, and then force other people to watch it. I guess even if it's just to sell more comics, I'm happy to see it get more promotion. But maybe if a lot of people buy copies, and then wish, or clap hard or whatever they'll turn it into a super-awesome TV show.

If not, then I guess I can just Netflix 10th Kingdom.


I'm sure this goes without saying, but neither Netflix nor anyone involved with Fables paid me anything to write this. Because they have no idea who I am. And paying off someone who's blog has like, 10 readers isn't exactly a good investment.

Never gonna give you up, etc., etc.

My cable box is turning into a giant, glowing beacon of shame. At least once a month, I think "man, we've got to figure out a way to cut our expenses," and the same idea crosses my mind every time: we should totally ditch our cable.

I mean cable is a complete luxury item, and between Hulu and Netflix Watch Instantly (which is magic) we could keep up on a bunch of shows. Of the ones not available online, most are available on DVD within months after. Plus tons of people don't have cable, and the absence of Real Housewives and Ninja Warriors actually makes them better people. It's been scientifically proven that people without cable plant 73% more daisies and shovel 47% more old people driveways then those of us who gave up their entire last Saturday cherry-picking their favorite episodes out of Logo's Buffy marathon (don't judge me). Getting rid of cable is obviously a good choice.

But I can't do it. Every time I consider it for more than a few minutes, I look at the list series set to record in my DVR. I don't know exactly how many shows are on that list, but I know it's a big enough number that I always feel a little embarrassed about it. And that's exactly the problem. Because sure, I could watch most of the shows I really love on DVD (though if their ratings fell and they got cancelled, I'd have no one to blame but myself). I already do that with things like True Blood, because I'm way too cheap/broke for HBO. But what, I ask you, of the garbage?
They don't put things like Tool Academy on DVD. And even if they do, I couldn't Netflix it. Watching it casually is one thing, but to have permanent proof that you wanted it enough to have it mailed to your home? And then I would get DVDs recommended to be based on the fact that I enjoyed Tool Academy. And I can only just manage to survive America's Next Top Model on a week-to-week basis. A full disc of Tyra conducting eliminations whilst lounging across the judge's table in a velvet catsuit and 6-foot-long blonde weave is just Too. Much. Tyra.

Besides, I don't just watch garbage. I watch a good quantity of genuinely good shows, and I like being caught up, and getting to read what other people think about them. And even if I didn't have cable, I would still read reviews. And wikipedia entries. And...third thing that would spoil surprises for me.

So, the cable stays. And yes, it means I'll never learn to hand-carve wooden songbirds like the people without cable. But, on the other hand, they don't get to spend their Christmas season making gifts while watching hours of terrible Lifetime Christmas movies, so who's the real winner here?

Ok, them. But seriously - have you ever seen the movies Lifetime shows at Christmas? They're fantastic. There was one in which Steve Guttenberg was about to take over the family business of being Santa, but first he had to get Helen from Wings to marry him. That is an actual movie. And it has a sequel. And if it becomes a trilogy, damn it, I'm going to be there.

Does this really need to be a thing?

I'm stodgy. I will readily admit that. Whenever a new piece of in-home technology (smart phones, HD TVs, blu-ray players, etc.) comes out, I tend to start muttering things about the under-appreciated simplicity of the rotary phone and the forgotten joys of taping shows using a VCR. Before long I'm eating Shredded Wheat in a ratty bathrobe demanding that neighborhood kids stay off my lawn.

I don't have a lawn.

I'm not entirely stuck in the past: I think wi-fi is the most wonderfully magical thing ever, I text (very slowly), and I consider my DVR an island of hope and stability in the sort of chaotic world where two awesome shows would be cruelly scheduled against each other in some sort of twisted ratings death match.

It's just...do we really need 3D TV? I just genuinely don't get it. I can agree that some movies benefit from the depth that 3D adds, but if a movie isn't still good on a regular-ass TV than it wasn't that great to start with. Plus, there aren't that many TV shows that I feel wildly compelled to see in rendered in three dimensions either. I've never found myself watching an episode of Bones and thinking "man, the only thing that could make this increasingly blatant Toyota product placement better is if it felt like the cars were driving right at me."

But the main reason I just really do not understand the joy of 3-D TV is this:Image from Samsung's website

The Samsung 3D Active Glasses. Your $2000 TV will come with two pairs. Additional pairs are $200 each. So if your kid stomps on them? $200 bucks. If you friend drops them in a beer? $200.

So if you want to invite a bunch of friends over to actually watch your snazzy new TV, you could easily tack on another $1000.

Ok, I know that to some people it might be worth it, but with $200 I could buy new actual glasses. Like, ones I can use the see. And even if I were to buy a party-sized set of 3D glasses, when a single pair = a month's worth of groceries, I would require security deposit before I even let anyone near them.

I'm sure that 8 years from now (when they're cheap) I'll totally have a 3D tv, and I'll have moved on to bitching about some other new and exciting advancement (unless it's a car that drives itself, because I'm so down for that). For now, though, I'm good with my TV being flat.

I'm all for Patriotism

It would have been cool if the US beat England in today's World Cup match, but I'm kind of glad it was a draw.

Mostly because I had this fear that if the US won, the BBC would temporarily shut off BBC America in retaliation. I know that's completely ridiculous, especially since a little vengeance is hardly worth the loss in ad revenue, but do we really want to chance it? Especially on Doctor Who night?

And by "on Doctor Who night", I mean something significantly cooler sounding than copping to building my Saturdays around the fact that I'm a giant nerd. Like, "on my poker-playing/micro-brew-drinking/knife-juggling night".

Gross, Mars Company. Just Gross.

Ok, first watch this:



Gross, right?

I mean, "working the polls"? Seriously? Do we actually need to use a naughty double entendre to sell M&M's? I just... it's yucky. Having an anthropomorphic chocolate candy make bedroom eyes does not make me want to buy candy. I could also note how lame it is that the only female M&M character is only there to be leered at, but that would be too ridiculous because it's an anthropomorphic chocolate candy.

But still, why does she have to be such a ho?


Also- this is the first time I've ever embedded a video and, even though it was super-easy and takes zero knowledge about coding and such, I'm really proud of myself.

Edited to add: I'm slightly less proud of myself now that I can't figure out how to keep the video from blocking the archive links in the sidebar.

Yay!!!

I know what I'm doing next Christmas. That is all.

Have you seen this?

Image by Tasty Kitchen user ivoryhut

Do you know what this is? It's Gin & Tonic Sorbet. It's a dessert made of drunk. Seriously. The iPhone 4 can suck it; this is the must-have product of the year (though I may be a bit biased by the fact that, unlike the iPhone 4, I can actually afford Gin & Tonic sorbet).

I even have an ice cream maker, so I can actually make this for myself/others/mostly myself in the near future. However, should someone want to make if for me, that would be cool, too.

Thank you for being a friend

Rue McClanahan passed away today. She was funny and a fantastic actress and she will be missed.

We can leave out the shoulder pads, though.

Can someone please bring back Designing Women? Franchises that are younger than your average fifth grader are being remade and rebooted, so why not the Sugarbakers? Television is faced with a tragic shortage of kicky broads just being awesome, and Designing Women is the obvious cure (well, ok Golden Girls is probably the actual obvious cure, but there are somethings that one simply doesn't screw around with). Know one could ever quite live up to Dixie Carter, but I'd like to see someone at least try.

I can't really think of a show since the 90s that's really been a bunch of women hanging out and being awesome. Desperate Housewives seems to be (I've seen it about .65 times) having sex/scandals/drinks. All of which has it's place on television and in my heart, and my interest in the show is certainly elevated by the fact that both the late Dixie Carter (Queen of Awesomeness) and John Barrowman have done guest spots, but what makes Golden Girls and Designing Women great is that the dating stuff always felt kind of...secondary.

That's the main reason I can't really support the idea of Sex and the City as having been a full-on heir to the throne. Yes, it had a group of women as central characters, and yes they rejected the idea that a good boyfriend is all it takes for a girl to be happy (though I've read reviews asserting that the new movie has embraced the man-as-ultimate-goal idea pretty strongly), but it seems like - though all of the characters mattered - Carrie and Carrie's relationships were at the core. A lot of major arcs seemed (and I say this having been a fairly casual viewer of the show) to be about the development, growth and failure of serious relationships. Viewers were supposed to know if they wanted an Aidan or a Big. And it's not that that stops it from being a good show, it just stops it from fitting the Designing Women/Golden Girls bill. Seriously, for all the dating that took place on Golden Girls I can't name five boyfriends. I only get to five because I know Miles, Stan (which feels like cheating), George's brother and that guy Leslie Nielsen played. Was it Leslie Nielsen? I think it was, so we're just going to go with it. Even with Designing Women I mostly remember that Hal Holbrook was Reese and Scott Bakula was Mary Jo's ex.

It's not that I'm opposed to manufactured reality TV drama, or scripted salaciousness. Those things are awesome. It's what most of my Sundays are made of. It's just that awesome female characters can get a little sparse, and a new Julia Sugarbaker could do a hell of a lot to change that.

Will Schuester, you bastard

I really love the show Glee. It's one of Fox's most popular shows, so I don't think I'm blowing any minds by saying that. The thing is, as the season's gone on I've realized something: Will Schuester is one of the biggest assholes on television. Ok, that may be (read: is totally) an overstatement, but if you only compare him to other "good guys", the dude comes off pretty poorly.

This season he:
-Stopped giving Rachel any leads (really early on - it's what made her quit)
-Started giving Rachel and Finn ALL the leads (which the show jokes about, but is still struggling to actually change)
-Flirted with Every. Woman. He. Met. (Yes, I know his wife was a pregnancy-faking crazy-face, but he didn't know that).
-Started his "next" relationship before his marriage was even over.
-Slept with the Original Broadway Cast of Wicked when that didn't work out.
- One of whom turned out to be a student's Mom (not technically his fault, but since the character was always basically a grown-up Rachel, it's still gross).

And finally...

-Decided to intentionally seduce and drop some one only after seeing how depressed having that happen made someone else.

In just about every episode, Mr. Shuester only preaches the moral to the kids after he learns the lesson himself by being an awful, awful person.

An awful person with a nice butt, but still an awful person.