In the TV magazine this week there was a quick write-up of some programme or other which involved two young, rich American girls travelling to the country to try to do country jobs, or something. This didn’t seem like my kind of show. Anyway, there was a photograph of these two girls. And, according to the caption, one of them was Paris Hilton. So now I know what she looks like. There is no way this isn’t going to embarrass me at some point. I’ll be flicking through the TV channels with Kate and various friends, when she’ll appear. Someone’ll say “Who’s that?”. “Paris Hilton”, I’ll immediately reply. Then that’ll be it, I’ll be teased mercilessly for evermore. Incidentally, if you’ve absoloutely no idea what I’m talking about, good for you.
Did you know they’re currently filming a Catwoman movie? They’ve changed the catwoman mythology. She’s now someone called Patience Price, as opposed to the Selina Kyle all comic fans know, but that doesn’t bother me too much. Halle Berry’s the eponymous heroine, and the first footage of her in costume was shown the other day. Heh. I don’t mind when superhero costumes are changed for the big screen, as it’s generally done properly:
Superman costume: Classic and cool – everybody knows you don’t mess with it.
Batman costume: Has never been particularly continuous in the comics, and there’s lots of leeway for change anyway.
Spiderman: Again, it’s classic, so you don’t change it.
Daredevil: Not much you can do with it, really.
Elektra: Fun as it would have been to see Jennifer Garner running around in this, it’s not what you’d call practical (the Elektra artists are all male? really?) so changing it for the film was understandable.
So changing Catwoman from this (or even this) to this, is somewhat odd. I mean, they’re obviously going for the sex appeal thing here, but it doesn’t personally do anything for me. In fact, it looks pretty silly. It’s like a gothic Minnie Mouse. How about you, guys?
Speaking of sex appeal, Janet Jackson apparently flashed primetime America during the superbowl last weekend. Whether or not it was actually an accident, as is claimed, you’ve gotta be amused by the reactions it’s generated:
Jan LaRue, chief counsel for the conservative Concerned Women for America group, called it a “pornographic show”.
Oh, for crying out loud. I haven’t seen pictures myself (“um, I was doing research for the blog, dear”) but I am assuming that there was no actual sex involved. Any penetration, climaxing or other carnal activites? Didn’t think so. Now I know that ‘pornography’ doesn’t really have a proper definition, but this is just nuts. I mean, exactly who is it who is being corrupted here? I’m thinking most adults have seen a breast before, so that counts them out. I’ll assume the same for teenagers, so that leaves under thirteens. So what are they going to do? “Look, look, I saw a nipple! Let’s all go have sex!” I mean, how have these kids been raised?