"That would mean a movie based on a book based on reality show based on someone's life."
Oh, Dodai - don't you know for once, for once -- that's less work for the poor, driven, overworked Hollywood development execs, who otherwise have to comb slushpiles (and Broadway shows that are already hits) for gems of originality that they slog and dig to unearth, such as this? Are you showing your journalistic privilege? Where is your compassion?
Hee hee hee.
I'm not sure I'd watch Jon Gosselin's shenanigans at gunpoint. They'd have to go ahead and shoot.
Oh, same here, Jordan. Hopefully the police won't feel the need to go through my bookshelves at any point, as I have entirely too many true crime books.
Just because your sister/brother is famous doesn't mean YOU need to be famous. You don't need a reality show/singing career/line of handbags. Go to college, become an accountant and stay off my TV screen.
"I'm working on [adapting the book for the movies] right now" Oh Gawker! hahahaha....You kill me. Classic. (and now I will go cry into my own un-optioned book)
Okay, so shall we start the betting as to what channel will actually have so little soul that it would air an Octomom Reality Show?
My gut reaction is TLC, since they already have (had?) Jon & Kate + 8, but they might not want to be known as the All Multiples All the Time channel (although for awhile, they were the All Home Improvement, All the Time channel and that didn't seem to bug them). Odds: 2:1, but only because I don't think they'll want to become the poster network for why we have child labor laws.
My second choice is Bravo! home of exploitative reality shows that I don't watch. Bravo has gone from Gay-Per-View (that wonderful period of a couple years where I could watch Queer Eye, followed by another Queer Eye, followed by Boy Meets Boy, followed by The Birdcage without actually changing the channel) to the "artsy" channel (Project Runway, Top Chef, Groomer Has It), to the channel of choice for those of us who want to silently judge others who are richer than us (NYC Prep, Real Housewives) and those who make unusual and usually shitty parenting decisions (Showbiz Moms and Dads). Odds: 5:1, Nadya Suleman doesn't have enough money for Bravo to want us to judge her.
We also have VH1, home of "Celebreality." They obviously have no soul (see: ____ of Love in its various incarnations and charm schools and buses), so that is a tick mark in their favor. Ostensibly, this network focuses on has-been celebrities, but as I Love New York, Daisy of Love and Real Chance at Love have demonstrated, they are also fond of celebreality casualties. It remains to be seen if Octomom would be enough of a "celebrity" to want them to follow her with a camera, though. Odds: 10:1, unless someone at VH1 figures out how to make a "Octomom At Love" series in which case it becomes an even 1:1.
This leaves us with the Femme Three: Lifetime, We and Oxygen. As these handle more or less the same subject matter, we shall handle them together. Of the three, Lifetime is the least likely, playing host primarily to bad Made for TV movies and Army Wives. But they do toss out the occasional reality show such as "Momma Can't Dance" or the upcoming Project Runway. However, they seem to be marketing themselves a little more highbrow than I believe an Octomom Reality Extravapalooza could be. We is probably the next least likely. They tend to be more of a "Hallmark Channel With A Better Marketing Department" type of network and I don't think they would want to associate themselves with the stench of child labor either. Oxygen seems the most likely, with their fascination with wedding shows, a child rearing show could be the next step. Plus they seem to want to be "edgier" than their two counterpoints, and this could really put them over the edge. Odds: Lifetime is 10:1, We is 7:1, and Oxygen is 3:1 (unless I totally confused We with Oxygen, in which case switch those). Although I will allow you to bet all three together at 2:1 but only if you lose 50 lbs before your wedding.
Zombie Ms. Skittles promoted this comment
Edited by A_Gracious_Plenty at 07/28/09 10:21 AM
A_Gracious_Plenty was starred
A_Gracious_Plenty was unstarred
@A_Gracious_Plenty: Aww well that takes all the fun out of my life if it's only going to be on in the UK! Also, that it's going to be on at all. But if I can't complain about it why make it?
@Zombie Ms. Skittles: Don't forget E!, home of the Kardashians and the Girls Next Door. However, I think the Octos are just a bit too wholesome at this point to get their attention.
I'm totally happy to hear a judge appointed someone to look after Nadya Suleman's kid's estate. Really. With Jon out buying $950 shoes and wearing $75 t-shirts I get the feeling that when all is said and done there won't be much left for the plus 8.
@funnyface: The Gosselin parents seem to be spending their childrens' hard earned money somewhat wantonly. I'm glad that in Nadya Suleman's case, the judge is protecting the childrens' possible income.
@funnyface: I think rogerdoger meant that Nadya won't be able to take the +14's money out to go get a new wardrobe for herself, since obviously someone should have had a lawyer watching the money Jon has been able to dip into to spend on girlfriends and ugly shit.
But I'm glad you can be proud of your multiple birth family tree knowledge. Way to go.
Wouldn't it actually be a movie based on a book based on reality show based on someone's life based on the life of someone who starred in a reality show based on her life?
Count me as someone who's actually pretty sad about Reggie and Kim. They struck me as really cute, and he seemed like he was a good influence on her. We actually had the Kardashian sisters in for a meeting at work a while ago, and she was being adorable about him in that way people are when they're in love - like, "oh, I do this thing that's really annoying, Reggie always makes fun of it." or "Reggie says that..." Always sad to see relationships that seemed good end.
Q: What does Johnny Depp bring to the Mad Hatter?
A: Are you crazy? Have you never seen a Johnny Depp movie before? He wears a funny hat and eyeliner! He's Johnny Depp!
@BlondeGrlz: Q: What does Johnny Depp bring to the Mad Hatter?
A: Hopefully a lot more than he brought to Willy Wonka! Oh, what's that? You were going to ignore the fact that I've already trampled on one of your beloved books/movies with my crazy directing and wacky C.G.I.? Oh, well.. never mind then.
@Eleanor Ramilly: I loved the new Willy Wonka. Liked it better than the original, actually. I thought it captured the creepiness of the book a lot better.
@funnyface: You must have read a different book than me - I always thought Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was one of Dahl's lighter stories. And the boat-in-the-tunnel bit from the original used to give me nightmares. But look! FUNNY HATS! A washed out color scheme! JOHNNY DEPP!!!!
@funnyface: I love Roald Dahl and I have to disagree with you. The original movie was creepy/scary in a way that wasn't so oh my god, in your face! Gene Wilder is a terrific actor who didn't try to make the role so weird. It was a weird role, naturally, and I think Depp really took it too far and ended up coming off corny.
Anyway, the two Alice books are also childhood favorites of mine. I just hope this movie isn't too Tim Burton. Why all the C.G.I.??
@Eleanor Ramilly: It's fine to disagree. We don't have to all love or hate Burton/Depp/Dahl. I'm personally super excited for this next film, but I've never seen a Tim Burton film I didn't love.
@Eleanor Ramilly: Count me in your minority. I much prefer the original willy wonka and though i do find some of burton's films entertaining, Depp is certainly not the reason why. I thought his acting was stupid and cliche in wonka-- wilder did it much better and more understated, as you said. I remember that tunnel scene (remember the shot of the chicken being beheaded!?) and the one where they're about to get eaten up in the fan...much more ominous and creepy than the burton version!
@BlondeGrlz: I still have occasional nightmares about the Vermicious Knids from "Great Glass Elevator." As long as darling dashing gorgeous Johnny doesn't decide to play one of those.
(Because he might.)
@Eleanor Ramilly: I think Tim is just experimenting with new toys, as he is wont to do.
ITA about Gene Wilder. I'd bet the studio asked him to tone it down, because Wonka, the inventor, the character, who really hates nasty kids, really is kind of out there.
07/28/09
07/28/09
I'm a little underwhelmed now.
07/28/09
Now THAT would be worth seeing.
07/28/09
07/28/09
Oh, Dodai - don't you know for once, for once -- that's less work for the poor, driven, overworked Hollywood development execs, who otherwise have to comb slushpiles (and Broadway shows that are already hits) for gems of originality that they slog and dig to unearth, such as this? Are you showing your journalistic privilege? Where is your compassion?
Hee hee hee.
I'm not sure I'd watch Jon Gosselin's shenanigans at gunpoint. They'd have to go ahead and shoot.
07/28/09
07/28/09
Just because your sister/brother is famous doesn't mean YOU need to be famous. You don't need a reality show/singing career/line of handbags. Go to college, become an accountant and stay off my TV screen.
Signed,
Everyone
07/28/09
07/28/09
07/28/09
My gut reaction is TLC, since they already have (had?) Jon & Kate + 8, but they might not want to be known as the All Multiples All the Time channel (although for awhile, they were the All Home Improvement, All the Time channel and that didn't seem to bug them). Odds: 2:1, but only because I don't think they'll want to become the poster network for why we have child labor laws.
My second choice is Bravo! home of exploitative reality shows that I don't watch. Bravo has gone from Gay-Per-View (that wonderful period of a couple years where I could watch Queer Eye, followed by another Queer Eye, followed by Boy Meets Boy, followed by The Birdcage without actually changing the channel) to the "artsy" channel (Project Runway, Top Chef, Groomer Has It), to the channel of choice for those of us who want to silently judge others who are richer than us (NYC Prep, Real Housewives) and those who make unusual and usually shitty parenting decisions (Showbiz Moms and Dads). Odds: 5:1, Nadya Suleman doesn't have enough money for Bravo to want us to judge her.
We also have VH1, home of "Celebreality." They obviously have no soul (see: ____ of Love in its various incarnations and charm schools and buses), so that is a tick mark in their favor. Ostensibly, this network focuses on has-been celebrities, but as I Love New York, Daisy of Love and Real Chance at Love have demonstrated, they are also fond of celebreality casualties. It remains to be seen if Octomom would be enough of a "celebrity" to want them to follow her with a camera, though. Odds: 10:1, unless someone at VH1 figures out how to make a "Octomom At Love" series in which case it becomes an even 1:1.
This leaves us with the Femme Three: Lifetime, We and Oxygen. As these handle more or less the same subject matter, we shall handle them together. Of the three, Lifetime is the least likely, playing host primarily to bad Made for TV movies and Army Wives. But they do toss out the occasional reality show such as "Momma Can't Dance" or the upcoming Project Runway. However, they seem to be marketing themselves a little more highbrow than I believe an Octomom Reality Extravapalooza could be. We is probably the next least likely. They tend to be more of a "Hallmark Channel With A Better Marketing Department" type of network and I don't think they would want to associate themselves with the stench of child labor either. Oxygen seems the most likely, with their fascination with wedding shows, a child rearing show could be the next step. Plus they seem to want to be "edgier" than their two counterpoints, and this could really put them over the edge. Odds: Lifetime is 10:1, We is 7:1, and Oxygen is 3:1 (unless I totally confused We with Oxygen, in which case switch those). Although I will allow you to bet all three together at 2:1 but only if you lose 50 lbs before your wedding.
07/28/09
07/28/09
07/28/09
07/28/09
07/28/09
Short answer: No.
Longer answer: Only if it involved Jon being pummeled to death by a group of older ladies with large purses.
07/28/09
07/28/09
07/28/09
07/28/09
07/28/09
07/28/09
07/28/09
07/28/09
But I'm glad you can be proud of your multiple birth family tree knowledge. Way to go.
07/28/09
07/28/09
07/28/09
A: Are you crazy? Have you never seen a Johnny Depp movie before? He wears a funny hat and eyeliner! He's Johnny Depp!
07/28/09
A: Hopefully a lot more than he brought to Willy Wonka! Oh, what's that? You were going to ignore the fact that I've already trampled on one of your beloved books/movies with my crazy directing and wacky C.G.I.? Oh, well.. never mind then.
07/28/09
07/28/09
07/28/09
07/28/09
Anyway, the two Alice books are also childhood favorites of mine. I just hope this movie isn't too Tim Burton. Why all the C.G.I.??
07/28/09
07/28/09
07/28/09
07/28/09
07/28/09
And FunnyFace: those are two of my favorites too, although I think my all time winner is The Giraffe and the Pelly and Me.
07/28/09
07/28/09
07/28/09
(Because he might.)
07/28/09
07/28/09
ITA about Gene Wilder. I'd bet the studio asked him to tone it down, because Wonka, the inventor, the character, who really hates nasty kids, really is kind of out there.
07/28/09
07/28/09
07/28/09