On Eerie Similarities

So, back in October, while still in the delightful EW cocoon, I had an idea for a sort of JJ Abrams checklist. I noticed how ridiculously similar Fringe was to the rest of the Jaybrams oeuvre, pitched it, and got it. The list of similarities I came up with was pretty extensive, but of course, what with the limitations of print space, only a few categories saw the light of day. That box was my first byline in EW, so I remember it well. It looks stupid in its online form, but whatever.

Two minutes ago, I go to check out Television Without Pity (as you do). And I see...this.

I know, I know. It's not the exact same thing. TWoP's is focused on characters (and has more errors--Peter Bishop isn't actually an MIT grad, guys; his degree is fake), but...I still feel a little ripped off. It's almost like TWoP's slideshow is...Fringe...and my box is...Alias ZOMG SO META.

Anyway, I just thought I'd point that out.

Twilight and Summit: Officially Ridiculous

The Hollywood Reporter is, er, reporting that Summit might actually already have a director for the Eclipse movie. To which I say: Seriously?

Look, I liked Twilight well enough. As the wonderful Cleolinda Jones says, it's like a Twinkie(c). It's not good for you, but sometimes you just want something gross and sugary. Or like when I have a craving for Papa John's and some Corona instead of Giordano's or something. (Side note: God, I miss Giordano's.)

But the movie was just awful. I know, I know, it made a truckload of money and they've greenlighted like sixteen sequels, blah blah vampirecakes. The problem is that the subsequent books are terrible. And not in an acceptable "Oh man, this is awful but I can't put it down" kind of way. In a "Holy God, why are these people still alive/undead? I must smash my face into my desk" way.

It seems like Summit is nervous about keeping the Twimomentum going; otherwise, why all this speculation this early in the game? IMDb says they haven't even finished filming on New Moon yet.

Also, this is just going to encourage EW to put the same stupid photo on yet another cover. Because God forbid they not put something Twilight-related on the cover. I don't necessarily blame them, because that shit sells like hotcakes on the newsstands, but they're alienating most of their subscription base. This isn't the Catch-22 it looks like.

Look for a possible new segment, "If we ran the world..." sometime soon. Maybe.

You've Got Facebook

So, Nielsen and THR say social networking is pwning e-mail. To which I say: Duh.

That horrible "Business Exchange" travesty aside, this is actually a good thing. I've never understood why online advertising hasn't been nearly as successful as print advertising was in its heyday (this is a good study about that), and I think that's one of the reasons why most magazines still have horrible sites. (Look, God knows I love EW, and PopWatch is a great blog, but I still hate the way the homepage looks. And, full disclosure, I used to work there and write for PopWatch.)

I still mostly try to keep work and Facebook separate (though everyone at EW was so chill, I broke that rule for them), but the fact is, it's the best way to casually keep in contact with people. The beauty of the internet (yeah, I refuse to capitalize it) is its innately casual nature. Plus, you get the benefit of other people seeing you interacting. It's like, after years of making fun of computer nerds for sitting inside and not having friends, everyone decided to go about being as public with their affection as possible. Since, ultimately, we're a deeply voyeuristic society, it all turns into this ridiculous (but sometimes entertaining) circle-jerk of internet activity. Now you know why I don't Twitter.

This is why I firmly believe what my favorite TWoP recapper Jacob says about it: "The internet actually is just a very large bathroom wall, and anybody who cares about this shit or goes after their employees based on it has bigger problems than their basic inability to understand how the world works." Amen, sir. (For ruminations on why people treat the internet like a bathroom wall in the first place, please see John Gabriel's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory.)

Maybe that's why advertisers still aren't sold on the online thing? Too many fuckwads? But you'd think those fuckwads would buy more stuff. Hmmm...