the list of now

Via TVGuide:  Rob Thomas says that he and Kristin Bell are “both in” and the movie is his next project after Cupid… provided someone will pay for it.

(Come on, Hollywood, I really want to see this movie happen!)

And I know I’m not the only one.  However, I’m not sure it would do any business really.  I don’t know how a “Veronica Mars” movie would have any appeal to anyone other than fans and the fans weren’t enough to save the series, so I’m guessing they are going to have a hard time getting anyone to bankroll this movie.

I wish that wasn’t true.   Ah well

Q:  What was I doing just now that I’m embarassed to admit?

A:  Scouring you tube for the new promo, featuring the first five minutes of Monday’s Gossip Girl premiere.  (I’m a 15 year old girl sometimes, so shoot me)

Q:  Who did I discover, a few minutes in, making out with Nate Archibald?

A:  Shelly (Machen Amick) from Twin Peaks in what obviously is set up as a COUGAR role.  Funny!  Because I’m watching Twin Peaks now, so in my head, she’s only in her 20′s and could pass as a regular cast member of Gossip Girl. But alas, this is no longer true.  That show came out 18 years ago!

Her wikipedia entry confirms:

She has a recurring role in season 2 of Gossip Girl as Nate Archibald’s “cougar” love interest.

You can find her in the clip here, at around 1:53.  You can actually see that it’s her at 2:26.  Gosh this show is sleazy… and not so innovative.  Didn’t Dawson’s Creek do this storyline (albeit, very badly) a decade ago?

Crazy!  So um…

Q: What happened to the rest of the cast of Twin Peaks?

(via /film)

And The Dark Knight sequel gossip continues. Could Cher be in line to play Catwoman in the next Batman installment? The British newspaper The Telegraph is citing a “studio executive” source, claiming that Cher us “Nolan’s first choice” for the role.

“He wants to her to portray her like a vamp in her twilight years,” says the Telegraph’s source. “The new Catwoman will be the absolute opposite of Michelle Pfeiffer and Halle Berry’s purring creations.”

I agree with slashfilm, that this is not very likely.   Regardless of Cher’s abilities as an actress (Moonstruck f’n rocks and I don’t care what anyone says) or that an aging icon playing an aging diva supervillian is kind of a cool idea – as of a couple weeks ago, Nolan hadn’t even officially signed on for a third film.  Which makes any casting rumors, at this point, a bit ridiculous.

Slashfilm also provided this neat little Batman rumor timeline, which I totally appreciate because I thoroughly enjoy organizational tools for geekiness:

• June 29th: Gary Oldman suggested The Riddler might be the main villain during an interview with /Film. It was unclear if he had any information reguarding that possible direction, or if he was just thinking out loud.
• July 3rd: Goyer admitted to BatmanOnFilm that the realistic tone of the Nolanverse would prevent some of the more unrealistic characters from making an appearance: “You’re not going to see Clayface in these films”
• July 9th: David Goyer told /Film at the Junket: ‘There are dozens, if not hundreds of other characters that are possibilities. Everyone says you have you use the Penquin or Catwoman. Well, I completely disagree.”
• July 21st: Goyer admits to MTV that he has “talked loosely about” the theme for the third film. And of course, the theme has always been connected with the choice of villains.
• July 27th: The New York Daily News reported that Angelina Jolie had inquired about playing the role.
• August 15th: Variety reports that Warner Bros has offered Christopher Nolan a deal for a third film, but Nolan hasn’t yet signed on: “We have no idea where Chris is going with this,” Alan Horn said. “We haven’t had any conversations with him about it.”

I know I’m posting about this late and I really don’t have much new to say that hasn’t already been said here or here.  The quasi-official sounding reasons from WB:

The press release says the reason for the move was two-fold: First, the studio says summer releases are better for “family tentpole” events, and second, they are still feeling the aftereffects of the writers’ strike and need the time to make sure the film reaches the widest audience possible.

I think that sounds like post-damage control reasoning.  I mean, I don’t think I’m just being a whiny fangirl here, I just think it sounds really fishy.  I think some problem was discovered, they decided the only way to fix/avoid the problem was this and then sat around coming up with reasons to make it look like a reasonably premeditated move.   Other bloggers are speculating it’s all about the money.  However, I just read this on /film and it’s absolutely true:

The three Potter films released in November averaged $916 million worldwide, while the two summer releases averaged $866 million worldwide, which is about a $50 million difference.

It’s also worth noting that ICE Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs opens two weeks earlier, Ronald Emmerich’s sci-fi disaster movie 2012 opens the week before, and Land of the Lost opens on the same day as the new date. The november release had virtually no competition until a month later when Twilight hit theaters on December 12th.

So this would be a bad money move, no?  Unless they are hoping for another Dark Knight in terms of box office success, which would be extremely short-sighted on their part. The Dark Knight didn’t have success due to timing, it had success due to it being one of the best films of the decade.   Not to mention, It was brilliantly executed at every level of business (from the production itself to the marketing) and there is no way ANY Harry Potter film will touch that.  These are HUGE huge films, but they just do not have the mainstream/adult appeal that The Dark Knight has.

I’ve also read people speculating that they moved the film due to Daniel Radcliffe’s starring role (and nudity) on Broadway in Equus. I doubt this is true, because The Half-Blood Prince is not exactly the “family fare” that the early Potter films were marketed as.  WB has clearly already made the choice to introduce the more serious/dark elements of that story in it’s very first teaser.  (No, I do not count that crappy IMAX one-line, 15 second piece of BS).   So why would they shy away from the (mild) controversy of D-Rad’s nudity now?

Regardless of the reason, I’m sad.  Luckily I have this new picture of the “Unbreakable Vow” scene to cheer me up.

Well played, WB.

Bastards.

The thing I love about LOST spoilers that I find online is that I don’t need to avoid them. They never give away any information, just give us more to chew on. (and chew on and chew on and chew on… until January)

So here’s the juicyest new things I’ve heard/read/seen about the new season of LOST:

1. The title of the first episode of the new season will be “Because You Left”. (Via: EW)

2. Literary Nerdy + LOST Geeky = LOST Book Club LOVE LOVE LOVE!

The LOST book club is home to any and all literary references made on the show – from Stephen King to Kurt Vonnegut. Browse the book list and get all the details.

It’s ALL there. Now I know that the LOSTpedia has already run circles around every reference in the show to just about ANYTHING. So this isn’t exactly new information. But for an official show website feature, I have to say, the DESIGN of this is brilliant! You can view them indexed by season, by what kind of reference, or just peruse all the books in a very convenient little floating book widget thingie. Extremely fun to play with! You can also discuss the significance of the books with other fans in the forums. Thanks, ABC. I’m a fan.

3. Check out these totally HAWT promo pictures, released last week! (via Remote Access)

What does it all mean? I don’t know if these photos mean anything, except “Hey look at our sexy cast… don’t you want to see more of our sexy sexy cast in January?”

Not that it matters. They could draw a Dharma Initiative logo on a f’n cocktail napkin, scan it and leak it online and I would still be excited to find it. “A cocktail napkin? What does it all MEAN?”

Click the link to see the full spread. These are my two favorites:

Although, to clarify, I wouldn’t necessarily call Ben HOT… I don’t think that is the point. I think everyone in these photos was “dressed up” to fit their characters somehow. I picked the “Ben” photo as a favorite because it captured a kind of energy very strongly. That vest has a really sharp + vintage look that really suits his character – classy, yet still very mad professor.

And I don’t think I need to explain why the “Sun” picture was a favorite. She is one of my favorite characters and I love that she got the shiny, space-diva dress.

Oh and one more thing. I think Elizabeth Mitchell is gorgeous and I love the character of Juliet. So why does everyone else look glam or at least moderately spiffed-up and Juliet looks like you just caught her leaving a yoga class? Upon closer look, it appears that she is wearing a skirt, which would make the top look a little dressier. Kinda. Maybe it’s the colors? I don’t know, but I look at this and I see Fruit of the Loom commercial:

Maybe it’s just me. Thoughts?