Virgil's All Night Diner

Torchwood by Way of Glee: Dance, Barrowman, Dance!

Just for fun for you Torchwood fans ...

 

 

Stargate Universe: Is SGU the New BSG?

The tears were barely dry.  The black void of Friday night still seemed a gaping wound.  My beloved Battlestar Galactica no more...Then the trailers - Stargate Universe, the latest in the successful Stargate franchise.  I had always enjoyed the Stargate brand.  I was not a hardcore fan, not like I was with BSG, so I wasn't terribly excited at first.  Still, it seemed a little different . . .

No one would accuse Stargate: SG-1 of being sexy.  It was a show made of great stories, a complex mythology, and fun characters.  Atlantis followed in similar fashion and was perhaps a tad more sexy.  When the promos began, the directive was clear:  this was a whole new Stargate - a grittier, sexier version of the fan favorite series.

"Gritty", "Dark", and "Edgy" are words I've come to resent as marketing ploys.  Execs expect us to pop to these words because they want us to believe that "gritty, dark, and edgy" also means "thematically challenging," "morally relevant," and "narratively complex."  How about a grittier version of Dark Shadows ... Let's redo Willie Wonka - only darker ... We'll bring back 90210 and make it edgier...And so on ... Shakespeare tried to write a darker and edgier tragedy and he ended up with Titus Andronicus.  It's not a bad play as tragedies go, but neither is it Hamlet. 

I guess we can blame Battlestar Galactica for that.  When Syfy promised a darker, grittier version of the short lived '80's cult favorite, fans were skeptical. With its bold look, stark realism, and complex relationships, Battlestar found a loyal following.  So, can you really fault the logic?  Merge one of science fiction's most successful franchises with the look and style of one its most controversial cult hits and you have Stargate Universe. 

There are overt differences:  both shows feature an aging ship at its core, crewed by an assortment of misfits who spend as much time fighting each other as they do any external threats.  The shooting style is, admittedly, a little too familiar:  the exterior shot of the ship with the jump cut zoom ... the foreboding silence of space ... the shaky documentary style camera work ...

These, however, are cosmetic similarities.  You can cut your hair like Brad Pitt or wear Jennifer Aniston's lipstick - it still won't get you a table at Nobu.  Thankfully SGU's creators did not stop at simply creating an image, but at creating an original and compelling story.  Internet haters draw negative comparisons to both Battlestar Galactica and Star Trek:  Voyager.  This show is neither of those.  Galactica is a story about survival in the face of apocalypse; it is an existential quest to define what it means to be human when there's barely any humanity left, all while running from a threat that despises this humanity and sess themselves as superior.  Voyager was also about survival, but in the vein of The Odyssey.  In their quest to get back home, they encountered wacky creatures and wild adventures, and while they too were impossibly far away from home, the situation just never seemed that dire.

SGU shares elements of both, but it is also something entirely new.  Like Voyager, the Destiny and its crew are far, far from home and may realistically never make it back.  Like Galactica, survival is the primary goal.  The ship is ancient (and Ancient), and not working particularly well, and resources are limited.  While Galactica dealt with basic survival issues, the Cylon threat was always at the core of the show; and while I'm sure the crew of Voyager suffered regular bouts of homesickness, being on a state of the art, tricked out starship, with nifty aliens and populated planets all around surely eased that pain. 

Just glancing through the titles of each episode should tell you something:  "Air," "Darkness," "Light," "Water" - it's the life cycle.  We swallow that first breath of air out of the darkness, open our eyes, and drink.  The characters on SGU aren't just trying to survive - they're re-learning how to live.  That has been the focus of the first handful of episodes and it has made for both compelling drama and original science fiction storytelling.

I hear the complaints:  the show is boring; there are no aliens; it's not funny ... Episode 5 - "Water" gave us our first full encounter with an alien species.  It's refreshing to see a science fiction show move away from the Star Trek model of alien species:  humanoid creatures with a different prosthetic attachment each week.  I am not knocking Star Trek and I know all too well that Star Trek has its fair share of interesting and unusual aliens, but I think you see my point.  From what we've seen so far, the Destiny and its crew are in a largely uninhabited region of space and I credit the writers for not giving in to the urge to introduce an overt alien threat right away (though technically, they're the aliens...)

To be honest, this show will more likely appeal to BSG fans than it will SG-1 fans, and, yes, this much of a tonal shift comes with a price:  Richard Dean Anderson feels misused and woefully humorless and I'm not sure how well other fan favorite characters will mesh with this new Stargate paradigm.  Still, for me, science fiction has always been more about humanity's relationship with the unknown than it has strange aliens and cool gizmos.  SGU will most likely take its lumps from BSG haters and SG-1 loyalists, but it also seems to have found a loyal, if not somewhat quiet, following.  So, while I am eager to hear from the show's haters and detractors, I'd also like to hear what's right about the show.  Sound off!

First Hulu Rots Your Brain ... Then It Drains Your Wallet

According to this story on EW.com, Hulu may start charging viewers to watch its content.  Ah, internet bait and switch - why do you taunt us so?  First you get us hooked with your free programming and pretty interface, then, when we come to rely on you most, when we're hooked like a baby on lollipops, you pull the trigger. 

"That first lollipop was good, eh, kid? If you want another, it's gonna cost you..."

Oh, Hulu, you crack dealing pimp master of reruns ...

The reaction on EW.com is predictable.  Some angry, some hurt, many vowing to never again grace Hulu with their presence.  And I do understand the feeling of betrayal, but I also see the other side.  Admittedly, it seems a bit of a dark side at first.

Of all those threatening to vacate Hulu's hallowed halls, some, perhaps many of them, will eat crow and plunk down the money.  Now, I'm assuming that Hulu is going to maintain a modest subscription fee, perhaps five to ten dollars a month.  Should this premise prove faulty and Hulu attempts a more ambitious pricing, then all that follows will be moot.

Why am I so confident that Hulu will succeed with its diabolical plan?  My reasons are three-fold:

1) People are slowly getting used to paying for content on the Internet.  Thank you, iTunes.  Even with the plethora of free music out there, people flock to iTunes like it's a Sam Goody in a Jersey mall circa 1989.  People like being able to satisfy all their music (in this case, television) needs in one place.  Ah, but people were already trained to pay for music - we don't pay for network television...

2) A lot of the comments on the EW story discuss using torrent sites or other video hosting sites to find their favorite episodes for free.  They say it's pointless to pay for something that is ostensibly free.  Some will do this.  Most, I'm willing to bet, have grown accustomed to Hulu's one-stop re-run emporium.  And it's so pretty too, isn't it?  That nice clean interface - all of our favorite shows so easy to find.  That's going to be tough to give up.  If there's one thing pop culture has taught me, it's that people have no problem paying for pretty and pointless things.  See:  Jessica Simpson.

3) Hulu did its homework.  They are not doing this blindly.  I have no doubt they did countless market research studies to test the viability of this plan.  I'm taking a shot in the dark here, but I bet they found that people's viewing habits are slowly changing.  More and more, people are turning to places like Hulu to catch their favorite shows.  If Hulu is catching this wave at the right time, then it might just lead them to great rewards. Between shows I DVR and shows I watch On Demand, there are very few shows I watch during their scheduled time.  Case in point, I am obsessed with Flashforward, but right now I'm more interested in watching the Yankees take a beating from the Angels, so I'll DVR Flashforward and watch it at my leisure.  Do shows need to be scheduled any more, or are weekly release dates going to become the new norm?  Felicia Day's The Guild is a wildly successful Internet phenomenon whose audience anticipates each episode's release date the way my family flocked to The Love Boat on Saturday night.  Joss Whedon's Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog, though only three episodes, crashed servers with each episode's release, a virtual re-enactment of those hordes of Dickens groupies who would storm the docks when a new chapter of Great Expectations would arrive.  Is a release date any less potent for advertisers than a regularly scheduled time slot?

BOTTOM LINE:  The Times They Are a-Changing ... the free content gravy train that is the Internet has come of age.  It's tired of mowing Mom and Dad's lawn for free and it wants its allowance upped.  If people's viewing habits are indeed changing, then that means fewer eyes during those prime time viewing hours.  It doesn't take much to see where this is going.  Fewer eyes to fewer dollars to fewer shows, and that means more Leno.  And nobody wants that...Is a small monthly fee too much to pay for keeping your favorite show in production?

I want to be optimistic about this.  I want to believe that in the long run, this might be a good thing.  With Netflix streaming more and more of its content and with Hulu's partnerships growing every day, is it so hard to imagine a household that no longer needs cable?  New televisions that integrate internet streaming like this one from Toshiba certainly make this a more viable reality.  Sound off ... can you envision a day not so far off when so much of your "television" viewing happens on-line that you ditch cable completely?

Unretiring Garth Brooks

According to pick-any-news-site-on-the-internet and Twitter, Garth Brooks has pulled a Favre and unretired from country music for a limited run at the Wynn Resort in Las Vegas.  Is it just me or has the word "retirement" just lost all sense of meaning?  First of all, anyone who claims to retire before he's 40 is kidding himself ... or us.  See, Garth Brooks announced his retirement in 2000 at the ripe old age of 38.  I'm 38 and I'm still trying to figure out what I'm going to be when I grow up...see how this makes me feel?  I don't even like it when athletes say they retire.  You're 35 and you're done?  Really?  Time to break out the Hawaiian shirt, buy a time share in the Keys, and hit the early bird special for the next 45 years? 

Shouldn't phrases like "retirement" and "jump the shark" be reserved for more special moments.  Overheard Comment:  "Did you see that episode of The Office where Jim becomes manager - it totally jumped the shark."  No...it didn't.  See, shows the jump the shark when they become so desperate to hold on to fleeing viewers that they do something completely ridiculous, like have a grown man in a leather jacket water ski jump over a FREAKING SHARK.  When shows do something you don't like, it's just them doing something you don't like.  Sucks to be you.  When did "jump the shark" become the new "isn't that ironic?"  (And thank you Alanis Morissette for single handedly devaluing the English language's most sophisticated weapon like it was an American dollar at a Parisian hotel.)  Crappy situations in life are just crappy situations in life and crappy episodes are just crappy episodes.  They are no more "ironic" or "jump the shark" worthy than people who walk away from their job at the age of 38 are "retired" - especially when that person says he will come back to that job in the same breath he says he's retiring.

I know I'm overreacting.  It's just a word - a string of letters made up of a series of lines that contain no more meaning than what we assign to them.  But shouldn't words still have power and value and magic?  When a person utters the word "retirement," shouldn't it be because they've spent decades building a reputation, servicing others, providing for loved ones, accumulating accomplishments and awards.  Shouldn't you feel a sense of awe? Relief because that person has at long last earned a rest?  Gratitude for all that person has given? 

I bear no ill will toward Garth Brooks.  He is not some great defiler of the English language like Alanis Morissette.  I'm excited he's coming back because I love his music and because he puts on one of the best stage shows I've ever seen.  Nine years ago he walked away because he wore himself to the bone for almost a decade and he wanted to spend time with his family and he had made enough money to take that break for ten lifetimes.  And he earned it.  I will not begrudge him that.  He did not, however, retire.  Musicians can't retire any more than artists or writers can.  Even most athletes don't really retire, do they?  How many end up as announcers or managers or coaches, continuing to contribute long after they've left the battlefield?  When John Madden said he was retiring, I believed.  He had given his whole life to football and he earned that word.  If Garth Brooks had meant it when he said he was retiring, I would have felt cheated.  A man that talented has too many good songs left in him to take it all away from us before he's even forty.  I'm glad you're back, Mr. Brooks.  Just promise me you'll stay unretired longer than Brett Favre stays retired.  Oh, and I hope your new album (when you're unretired enough to produce one) doesn't jump the shark.  Because that would be ironic.  Or not.

The Heroes Dead Pool is On!

Heroes, oh Heroes... What are we supposed to do with you?  You debuted with such promise: regular people imbued with superpowers; a complex, morally relevant narrative; a shadowy all-powerful villain whose very name became a synonym for terror; a memorable tag line that allowed us to embrace both cheerleaders and saving the world.  And those ratings ... oh, those glorious ratings...

Now... a writer's strike, a meandering, less character driven Season Two, and a course correction come too late later and it would seem that this (most likely final) season of Heroes is jumping sharks like Fonzie on a case of a Red Bull.  First it was the rumors of Claire's entirely gratuitous bi-sexual dalliance, complete with teaser images of Little Miss Indestructible leaning in for that first sweet taste of Sapphic spit.  Now, hinted at by EW's Michaell Ausiello (@EWAusielloFiles) and rumored by Scifiwire.com, comes word that a major male character from the original cast soon will be as flatlined as Heroes' 18-49 demo.  Can Cousin Oliver really be very far behind?

But I'm an optimist.  I enjoyed the "Redemption" arc, and Robert "T-Bag" Knepper's Dark Carnival has me intrigued, so I still want to play along and run down the suspects in what will most likely be Heroes' last desperate grab for viewers before NBC renews Heroes, waits until they've filmed half their season, then cancels them two weeks before their next season premiere.  (Man, I am bitter about Southland...)

The Rundown...

Peter Petrelli - Love him or hate him, the show has pretty much been built around him since Day One.  He is the moral compass for every other character's actions and he's a major player in the Dark Carnival.  Not to mention, he still has to rescue that Irish chick he abandoned in that dystopic future eight and a half seasons ago.  (We haven't forgotten, Kring!)  It's not an impossibility, but I'm not betting the farm on this one.  Definite long shot:  500-1. 

Sylar - Peter's anti-thesis in every way, Sylar's run the gamut from murderous sociopath to tortured anti-hero and right back to hardcore villain.  I can see why people would bet on him:  Quinto's star is rising in Hollywood and Knepper's Samuel, who is equal parts T-Bag and Magneto, seems a suitable replacement for lead villain.  Sylar, however, is still a huge draw, and, dramatically speaking, his story is really just starting.  His death would be a stunt that would have little impact on the story and would likely just alienate more viewers.  Long Shot:  100-1.

Mohinder Suresh - "Brilliant scientist with a penchant for being easily manipulated by evil" turned "Generically powered buggy thing with bad skin" turned "Maybe not so brilliant scientist with a penchant for being easily manipulated by thuggish enemies" has been mysteriously absent this season.  Would they bring him back just to kill him off?  It seems like a waste of a long time character, but it's plausible.  Or could it be that the mystery character's death will be used to bring Suresh out of hiding?  A Long Shot with Legs:  50-1.

Hiro Nakamura - It seems like the easy choice, doesn't it?  Hiro already believes his powers are killing him and he's using what time he has left to right as many wrongs as possible.  If Peter's the moral compass, then Hiro is the heart and soul of the show.  His death would have strong dramatic impact.  What man could hold back tears in the final moments of our doughy Hiro?  None, say I.  And yet, he's still the most entertaining part of the show.  And he's just too obvious a choice.  And...And..

Ando?  - What if noble and loyal Ando discovers a new use for his powers - one that will allow Hiro to live, but only at the cost of his own life?  The writers seem to be serving us up Hiro, so a last minute ditch to Ando makes sense.  Plus Ando finally found love - and that just never ends well. 

The Daily Double:  Hiro:  25-1 / Ando:  15-1

Matt Parkman - Parkman's been a major player in just about every story line and now either Sylar or his own psyche is turning him into a basket case, causing him to use his powers in dangerous and self-serving ways.  You don't need an Etch-a-Sketch to trace this storyline to a tragic end (Parkman too has re-found love and, as stated above, that just doesn't end well...).  Of course, by taking Parkman down this road, they've also created great new dramatic opportunities for him, including the possibility of turning him into a complete villain like his father.  A Mind Reader's Special:  10-1

And Now the Big Two...

Nathan Petrelli and Noah "HRG" Bennet

IF Ausiello's blind item does refer to Heroes (and the Magic 8-Ball seems to indicate "Heck Yeah"), then both Jack Coleman and Adrian Pasdar fit the bill of a "popular and well respected leading man." Technically, Nathan Petrelli is already dead, and technically, Adrian Pasdar is playing Sylar, who only thinks he's Nathan.  We all know the ruse has to end at some point, so "Nathan's"death really won't be much a shock to anyone but Peter and Claire, and certainly not to the audience.  While it will be sad to see Adrian Pasdar go, did anyone really think he could have much of a shelf life after last season's finale?  If this is the "big death" rumor being leaked and teased, then I have to cry shenanigans, even though it seems logical.  HRG, on the other hand, is a man without a purpose.  Claire has been the focus of his life and Bi-Claire Bear doesn't really need him so much anymore.  His death (at the hands of Sylar?  Crazy Fast Guy with Knives?) in Claire's arms would give a great emotional lift to the show and the loss of Claire's mentor and father would truly put her out on her own, giving her story more dramatic weight.  So, in what is sure to be a controversial finish ...

Nathan Petrelli (2-1) is disqualified for already being dead, making HRG (5-1) the official winner of the Virgil's All-Night Diner Heroes Dead Pool.

Thoughts? Comments?  Am I underplaying the long shots?  And why didn't I include Micah "Rebel" Sanders in this list?

Prevent Tauntaun Cruelty: Boycott ThinkGeek.com

Like the Eskimo, the Tauntaun have many words for snow, but they have only one word for love - "Tstpttfc," a word which now also represents The Society to Protect Tauntauns from Cruelty.  I recently posted that Thinkgeek.com's Tauntaun sleeping bag is the stuff of childhood nightmares, the kind of "harmless toy" that can do horrific damage to a child's psyche.  Some claim I am overreacting; others that I have too much time on my hands, and I confess, I have been guilty of both many, many times.  But I know now that my course is just, just as I know that the mellifluous cry of the Tauntaun in heat is as pleasing as church bells on a quiet spring morning.

Let me entertain my critics.  Yes, the sleeping bag is harmless, and perhaps it might encourage survival skills in the young.  So why stop there?  How about "Pin the Innards on the Tauntaun" for the biologically curious?  Why not a Tauntaun pinata with a lightsabre shaped stick with which to beat the creature as a means of honing baseball skills?  Ooh, I know - an Empire Strikes Back themed game of "Operation" wherein you pick clean the insides of a Tauntaun with lightsabre shaped tweezers for those interested in medicine...the possibilities are just endless, aren't they?  Fun for the whole family ...

The fact is Tauntaun abuse and neglect is on the rise, and irresponsible merchandising by Thinkgeek.com will only further this trend.  Here are some stories you may have missed while you were too busy debating health care reform, tracking the war on terror, and keeping up with the Kardashians (Kloe's my favorite - don't judge me!):

 - Six months ago, disgraced pro wrestler Danny "The Manny" Harris was arrested on charges stemming from an illegal Tauntaun fighting ring.  

- Three months ago, the Tauntaun population of Alaska was decimated by a burst oil pipeline.  Luckily, TSTPTTFC was there to help with the clean up.  Many Tauntauns were spared a humiliating future due to the efforts of TSTPTTFC and Sham-Wow.

-And just last month, a man was arrested for leaving his Tauntaun unattended in his car, the windows rolled up in 95 degree heat, while the suspect spent three hours at a strip club to see a Princess Leia look-a-like competition.

It's easy to turn the other cheek...to scoff at the civic minded who foresee the dangerous slope a "harmless toy" can present.  We at TSTPTTFC look our detractors straight in the eye.  Like a Tauntaun staring down a Wampa, we know we are outmatched, but we will not back down. 

Pop Culture Prank Becomes Reality

According to this story on scifiwire.com,  the Tauntaun sleeping bag first spoofed on ThinkGeek.com last April 1 is about to become a reality.  Yes, you will soon be able to buy a sleeping bag shaped like the cold weather kangaroos from The Empire Strikes Back.  Even better, the light saber zipper allows the child to pretend he is actually slicing the Tauntaun's belly open.  It's unclear whether the simulated innards described in the spoof ad will make it the final production model.

So, you buy your child a cute little sleeping bag for Christmas - and he or she thinks it's awesome. Maybe this child doesn't even know what a Tauntaun is:

"So I'll be like a baby kangaroo in its mama's pouch?"

"That's right, dear..."

Flashforward six months (for the record, spell check is telling me that flashforward is not a real word; ABC begs to differ, thank you very much...), said child is watching Empire for the very first time.  Imagine said child's excitement at said child's first glimpse of the Tauntaun.  The recognition is immediate - this is the creature that keeps the child comfy and safe at night ... this is the child's dearest friend.  Then comes the scene ... Han Solo in a stunning blue parka slicing open this noble steed like a Ginsu through a tin can.  It can only end in two ways:

1) The traumatized child realizes that he has been sleeping not in the warm embrace of his best friend and protector, but instead inside his dead, rotting carcass.  Said child will never again know a good night's sleep, will very likely develop an intense phobia of men in blue parkas, and may very well turn Vegan on the spot.

OR

2) Said child realizes how awesome disemboweling living creatures and nuzzling up within their remains can be and thus is born America's Future Most Wanted.

Either way, the story ends badly.  Please consider this when Christmas shopping this year.

Alice vs. Alice: Who Will Win the Wonderland Wars?

Between December and March of the upcoming year, fans will be treated to not one, but two new renditions of Lewis Caroll's Alice in Wonderland.  Strikingly different in tone and story, one has to wonder how fans will react to these interpretations. Coming up first in December is Syfy's Alice, a re-imagining of Carroll's tale with an older Alice, who may or may not be connected to the original Alice, and a more high-tech Wonderland.

Following that in March will be Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland which features (coincidentally?) an older Alice (this time the actual Alice), who returns to Wonderland with no memory of her previous visit there.

Maybe this is a case of studio politics, or maybe this is evidence of creative synergy, that great minds do think alike. If you watched the above trailers, then it's clear there are distinct differences in the look and feel of the two productions. Yet, there are similarities: both productions feature older Alices, neither of which seem aware of previous trips to Wonderland. The appeal is obvious: Syfy's audience skews older and Tim Burton's movies, though visually appealing to children, have a sensibility more attuned to adults. There also seems to be more of an epic aspect to both these movies, as if Alice returns to save Wonderland - Alice as Luke Skywalker, it would seem - which is also in keeping with an older Alice. And then there's this ...

Released in 2006, Frank Beddor's The Looking Glass Wars tells the story of Alyss Heart, who, as a child, is forced to flee from her home of Wonderland into our world, where her story inspires Charles Dodgson. Alyss, now Alice, grows up in our world and returns to her world as a grown woman to save Wonderland, which is a fascinating mixture of magic and technology, from her evil aunt Redd.

I am hardly being accusatory here. Beddor's book is entertaining and imaginative and fans have been clamoring for a film version since its release, but both Tim Burton and Nick Willing carry their own creative pedigrees. The very name "Tim Burton" has come to mean "creative reinvention" in some languages, while Nick Willing scored with both critics and fans with Tin Man, his re-imagining of The Wizard of Oz which aired on Syfy (then Scifi) last year. Is this a case of one writer dipping into another's well? Or have three great writers, fascinated with a story that has fascinated many, stumbled upon the same idea of re-envisioning Alice as a post-modern heroine, and not just a lost girl on a strange trip? Either way, fans of the Alice mythology get three shots to shoot down the rabbit hole, with Beddor's third part of The Looking Glass Wars saga being released this fall, Willing's Alice premiering on Syfy in December, and Burton's Alice in Wonderland being released in March 2010. Sound off below: Which Alice are you most looking forward to?

My Weird Birthday Obsession, or "Is It Me or Is Lauren Bacall Still Hot?"

I have a strange morning ritual, one few have known about until now.  Every morning, sometimes even before coffee, I go to IMDB.com to see which famous people are having birthdays that day.  Every morning.  Going on five years now (maybe longer - but I'll never admit it).  At first I did it as an affirmation.  I wanted to see where some of these people were at different points in their careers.  I could say, "So-and-So didn't get his big break until he was 34.  I still have time."  Time for what?  To make my mark...to make jealous those who wronged me in high school (she knows her name!) ... to be respected ... feared ... admired ... loved ... successful.  Yes, successful.  I was unconsciously placing an expiration date on my ability to succeed in this life.  On a daily basis I compared my worth to movie stars and famous directors. 

I think I've gotten over that - on most days at least.  But I still look everyday, probably due to a mild obsessive disorder.  So I've decided to turn a quirk into a positive, but exploring some of the more interesting birthdays:

According to IMDB, today is Lauren Bacall's 85th birthday.  Shame on you if your heart didn't skip a beat at the mere mention of the name.  Lauren Bacall first graced the screen at the age of nineteen along side the much older Humphrey Bogart in To Have and Have Not.  [Side Note:  To Have and Have Not was a brilliant screenplay written by the great William Faulkner, based on an abysmal novel by the normally great Ernest Hemingway.]  The film introduced the world to two things:  1) The great Hollywood love affair that was Bogie and Bacall and 2) An iconic beauty that has yet to be replicated. 

At nineteen, Bacall projected the kind of confidence women twice her age would envy.  From their very first scene together, Bogart and Bacall performed a kind of alchemy that turned celluloid into gold.  They would make four movies together in total and Bacall would go on to do many more movies on her own.  Who knows if Bacall would have become the icon she did without Bogart?  She probably would have anyway, but was there really any doubt after this scene:

Sure, Lauren Bacall was a screen icon at age nineteen, while I, at the same age, was mastering keg stands.  Maybe I've made some strides in the following years and maybe I've lost the agility necessary for a proper keg stand, but I think Lauren Bacall has shown me that success isn't measured in a moment, but in the full stretch of our days.  For all her body of work, Lauren Bacall has never won an Oscar, losing out on her only Supporting Actress nod in 1996.  Just days ago, however, the Academy decided to award her an honorary Oscar.  Why?  Because she has shined in over thirty films... because she is "The Look"... because she represents everything that was once classy and sophisticated about Hollywood.  She's still  classy and she's still magic and today's generation of rising stars can learn a lot from her.  I know I have.  Happy Birthday, Lauren Bacall - You've still got The Look.

House Votes to Put Joey in "Naughty Chair"

In a stunning move today, the House voted to put Rep. Joey Wilson (R-SC) in the "naughty chair" for making a "no-no" at the President's address last week.  It was a heated debate, with the Democrats arguing how important it was for both sides to "put their foot down" and make a united stand against "this kind of behavior," while the Republicans argued that "boys will be boys" and that it "really wasn't that big of a deal" and "didn't we all do that sort of thing when we were his age anyway." 

In the end the Republicans agreed to send Joey to the naughty chair.  The Democrats were clearly vindicated by the decision, telling one reporter, "He just needs boundaries.  It's good the Republicans saw things our way.  We'll be a stronger family for it in the end."

Though unavailable for comment,  it's being that reported that the Republicans waited for the Democrats to go to the spa, then released Joey early from the Naughty Chair and took him out for ice cream.