“I don’t know if Kickstarter can find an effective way to prevent one-man (or one-woman) operations like Zach Braff from using their services, but it would be fairly easy to bar corporations like Warner Bros from getting a piece of the pie. Of course, this probably won’t happen. A precedent has been set and it’s not likely to reverse itself. I guess this is the nature of capitalism in 2013, the 1% no longer has to offer a product to the public before taking its money.”
— Stop Giving Your Money to Rich People on Kickstarter | Toronto Standard
1:40 am • 8 May 2013 • 1 note
“The incentives, like the overwhelming success of these Kickstarter accounts, is a sign of commodity fetishism run amok. The idea that just being in a Zach Braff movie, any Zach Braff movie, is worth $10,000, is an insult to the collaborative nature of filmmaking; it’s insulting to the people that use services like Kickstarter and IndieGogo because they actually need the money; and it’s insulting to fans who are told that they need to sacrifice, with no potential for a financial return, if they want to see their favourite TV show return to life for a couple more hours.”
— Stop Giving Your Money to Rich People on Kickstarter | Toronto Standard
1:39 am • 8 May 2013
“The incentives offered to “backers” of these two films are laughable. A range of collectible production items, promotional material, and access to advance screenings. For $600, approximately $587 more than the price of a movie ticket, you can get a personalized video greeting directly from Kirsten Bell (Veronica Mars herself!). For $10 000, one lucky “backer” gets to have a line in Braff’s movie. Usually, that sort of thing is called acting, and on a “larger-scale” project, the actor receives money instead of giving it out. So not only is that “backer” giving $10,000 to a rich person, (s)he’s also taking money away from some needy Los Angelino Starbucks barista that could use the gig.”
— Stop Giving Your Money to Rich People on Kickstarter | Toronto Standard
1:33 am • 8 May 2013
“Those who have donated to Veronica Mars have given over $5 million to Time Warner (Warner Bros’ parent company), a multinational corporation, for an unknown commodity. Those who have donated money to Zach Braff have given millions to a millionaire for another unknown commodity. Collectively, fans have said that it’s OK for rich people to eliminate the factor of risk when they make films. The past five years, with its bitter recessions and global financial crises, has effectively removed the make-up from late capitalism’s ugly, bitter face, but these two Kickstarters are a sign that capitalism is eating itself, bit by bit, starting with the entertainment industry.”
— Stop Giving Your Money to Rich People on Kickstarter | Toronto Standard
1:32 am • 8 May 2013 • 1 note
“Whether reacting to the news positively or negatively, many people have pinpointed the Veronica Mars film as a watershed moment in alternative methods of film financing, and with Braff jumping on the metaphorically crowd-sourced wagon, they have their confirmation. Together, these two projects have set a terrible precedent. Filmmaking is an art, but it’s also a business. It’s a profit-seeking venture done by people and businesses with enough money to risk millions of dollars on a product that people may or may not want to see. That risk is the essence of capitalism. You’re supposed to spend money to make money. You have to make a sacrifice to reap the rewards.”
— Stop Giving Your Money to Rich People on Kickstarter | Toronto Standard
1:31 am • 8 May 2013
“What Pete always fails to account for is that he’s not Don Draper. He’s not married to a pushover of a woman who will take several seasons to find her spine. Instead, he’s married to the increasingly independent Trudy, who’s completely uninterested in how her disinterest in him has seemed to make him want her more than ever. He doesn’t have the Draper charm or charisma. He lets slights affect him too much, unable to simply bounce back and reinvent himself at every turn. Think back to that trip to California the two characters took in season two: Don wandered off with a bunch of young romantic types, while Pete stayed and diligently works. Pete tries so hard to win your favor; Don just assumes you’ll hand it over.”
— “For Immediate Release” | Mad Men | TV Club | TV | The A.V. Club
5:59 pm • 7 May 2013
PHOTO RECAP | The Vampire Diaries 4x21: She Gets Better
pricepeterson:
Hey what’s going on you guys! If you’re anything like me you’ve spent the last three months trapped in a steel drum rolling down an “up” escalator. Life can be very dizzying and loud and it’s like nobody will help you because there is a sale at Chico’s. But here we are again, talking about the best show on television Monster Mashin’. Just kidding it’s actually called The Vampire Diaries and A METRIC TON has happened since last time we hung out on the internet together gabbin’ about it. Here’s a quick list of highlights:
Read More
12:59 am • 7 May 2013 • 380 notes
“Whatever happens, I really hope they pick a woman, or someone of color. And I know that’s a quasi-political thing to say, but that would be nice. Maybe Maya Angelou. It’s a bold choice, but she’s a bold woman. She’s got a lot of life in her, and it would be nice to see someone beyond the clique.”
—
Late Night Reboot - Jeff Garlin, Tig Notaro and More on Shows They’d Host - Esquire
Esquire asked me what I’d call my show if I replaced Jimmy Fallon, and I said “Late Night with Maya Angelou.” This gig is a done deal, guys. Forward my mail to 30 Rock.
(via julieklausner)
(via julieklausner)
4:47 pm • 6 May 2013 • 29 notes
“Do you agree? At the risk of intimidation, there are some seriously awesome ladies supporting the makeup-at-35,000-feet cause (here’s looking at you, Jackie Brown). Don’t get caught up in questions of hottest-or-nottest though, this is about exercising individuality for it’s own sake, no doubt a difficult endeavor in a work environment that universally enforces a rather drab dress code. With self-expression already tamped down, these ladies [n’ gents] deserve the opportunity to meet the stresses of air travel with whatever face they choose (but, preferably, a face with all the spunk of Gwyneth in her prime). —Jessica Schiffer”
— Red Lipstick on a Plane! | Into The Gloss
4:37 pm • 6 May 2013 • 1 note
“But work ethic and higher learning aside, getting made up is, above all, self-expression—an art form with more integrity than it gets credit for (take that, TurkAir). Like other habits, it can help a person stand out from the increasingly homogenous crowd. More broadcast than mask, it has the ability to radiate what someone is all about from a distance, without words. This is as true of a freshly scrubbed face paired with a swipe of Chapstick as it is of a fully contoured Kardashian-style visage—it’s the ability to oscillate between the two at one’s discretion and leisure that’s interesting, and important. Neither should bind us.”
— Red Lipstick on a Plane! | Into The Gloss
4:36 pm • 6 May 2013 • 1 note
“Makeup is often written off as a superficial dalliance that women would be better off without. Women are regularly told that they should embrace their faces without it, and while it’s hard to wholly disagree with this be-one-with-your-pimples mentality, painting your face can also be a healthy and empowering pursuit. It’s no coincidence that linguistic authority Merriam Webster lists “maquillage” as synonymous with “war paint.” Makeup is armor for the modern woman (ditto men who bravely flip off tradition); it helps people literally put their best face forward, fostering outward confidence so that they can focus on ventures closer to the heart (working hard, loving deeply). Rather than being anti-intellectual or frivolous, its ability to prop up self-assurance tends to increase one’s drive and curiosity.”
— Red Lipstick on a Plane! | Into The Gloss
4:34 pm • 6 May 2013 • 1 note
“Of course, to accuse Luhrmann (who also co-wrote the screenplay with frequent collaborator Craig Pearce) of overkill is a bit like faulting a leopard for his spots. Love it or hate it, take it or leave it, this is unmistakably his “Gatsby” through and through, and as with all such carte-blanche extravaganzas (increasingly rare in this cautious Hollywood age), it exudes an undeniable fascination — at least for a while. In the notes for his unfinished final novel, “The Last Tycoon,” Fitzgerald famously wrote, “action is character,” but for Luhrmann action is production design, hairstyling, Prada gowns and sweeping, swirling, CGI-enhanced camera movements that offer more bird’s-eye views of Long Island (actually the Fox Studios in Sydney) than “The Hobbit” did of Middle-earth. Arguably, the movie reaches its orgiastic peak 30 minutes in, with the first full reveal of Gatsby himself (Leonardo DiCaprio), accompanied by an explosion of fireworks and the eruption of Gershwin on the soundtrack. Where, really, can one go from there?”
— Great Gatsby: Review DiCaprio Movie Exudes Undeniable Fascination | Variety
12:11 pm • 6 May 2013
• 