Search This Blog

Saturday, May 28, 2011

when not playing your age makes a difference

Actors who don't play their true age...

It's obvious that lots of actors do it. In fact, 'lots' should probably be changed to 'all'. Rarely does an actor only accept characters that are exactly his/her age. People play younger and older all the time, be it by a year or two, or twenty. Sometimes this is a big problem.

It's certainly an issue in "Body of Proof". Dana Delaney is 55. Joanna Cassidy is 65. She also looks like she's about 60. So, explain to me who thought it would be a good idea for Cassidy to play Delaney's mother?

Delany (L) & Cassidy (R)

Friday, May 27, 2011

'Bones' Season 7--maternity leave, short season, release date

'Bones' 7th Season:
maternity leave, short season & release date

Fox hasn't released 'Bones' seventh season premiere date yet...but we do know that it will in all likelihood be in mid-September (that's when the last two seasons started). Of course, it's possible it will be pushed earlier than usual to get as much out of Emily Deschanel as possible before she goes on Maternity Leave. As soon as she's gone, so is the show...they'll be going on hiatus. This is good news for Deschanel's baby, and bad news for us because it means that we're going to get a shortened seventh season of 'Bones'. Hart Hanson's new show, 'The Finder' (which had a cross-over episode with 'Bones' during this past season) is going to takeover for 'Bones' for at least ten episodes.

EDIT 7/22/11: 'Bones' Season 7 Premiere Date Released
UPDATE 2/7/12: When will 'Bones' Season 7 Continue

I, for one, can't wait until we see how everyone deals with Bone's pregnancy. Read my posting here to learn why!

To tide you over until September finally rolls around, here's a video of Brennan and Booth's first kiss (with the actors before/after reactions!). This clip certainly shows way more passion than the show has ever given us in their edited down version. It also makes Brennan's line "It was just like kissing my brother" way funnier:

Sarah Michelle Gellar: "The Ringer"

"Buffy's back" is the phrase that has been echoing in the blogosphere. The only problem this is that Buffy is not a real person. Unless you also believe that vampires are real. Then that's your problem.

Regardless, Sarah Michelle Gellar is back. And starring in a new CW show entitled 'The Ringer'.

I actually am pretty excited about this show. SMG plays two different women, identical twins who have been living separate lives. In fact, apparently their lives are so separate that their friends don't even know they have a twin. Basically one of the twins (from what I garner from the upfronts) is kind of a low-life who's an alcoholic and who is running from the law. The other twin is living a life of privilege with a lot of money and a lot of rich and powerful friends. So when poor twin "finds" (I suspect there's something fishy here) rich twin dead she obviously decides to impersonate her. I mean, who wouldn't?

Here's a short clip from 'The Ringer':

My biggest problem with the show is the fact that I'm worried it's going to be somehow tarnished by 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer'. Don't get me wrong, I am 'Buffy' fan, but this show is clearly something completely different. And from what I'm reading online I'm concerned that hardcore Buffy fans will trash this show because they feel that it should be similar to 'Buffy'. Which it obviously will never be.

Regardless, SMG clearly knows that this show will not be another Buffy. As she says, "it's not trying to be 'Buffy', because nothing will be 'Buffy'". Still, she seems to think that people will watch the show because they're fans of her...isn't most of her body of work cheesy teen romance movies? Sure she was in 'Buffy' but people who watched that show often watched it because they were fans of the show, not necessarily of SMG. Still, we'll see if she has a fan base following her when 'The Ringer' premieres this fall on the CW.

Thursday, May 26, 2011

Amy Poehler Spoke at Harvard! and she was funny!

Amy Poehler Spoke at Harvard Class Day (5/26/11)
scroll down to the bottom to watch the video

So, I lucked out and was able to hear Amy Poehler speak yesterday at Harvard. Let me just say, she was hilarious.

Actually, my favorite part happened before she was even speaking. The speaker before her, a student who had been asked to give a humorous oration, referred to her as "the blond Tina Fey". After saying this, he turned around to make momentary eye contact with her and she immediately flicked him off. It was pretty priceless, and everyone in the audience (well, maybe not the grandparents) thought it was funny. Her parents were in the audience too...I wonder if she got scolded afterward. I know for a fact my parents would not deem that appropriate behavior!

Her speech itself was perfect. It was mainly humor, with a bit of a somber tone thrown in (she mentioned 9/11 and AIDS). Somehow, despite the stark contrast between comments about 9/11 and her joke about Donald Trump in a chicken suit, she still managed to make everything flow successfully, and at fifteen minutes her speech wasn't too short or too long. I could go into more details, but I really think you should watch it for yourself.

In the speech which they've released online, Harvard cut out some funny moments. One of these cuts was her introduction by two students, who stated they wanted to give a first ever award for blonds (dyed or natural) who grew up in MA, went to BC, and were funny. They called the award "The Polar (Poehler!) Bear Award" and then presented Amy with a stuffed polar bear. As soon as she got up to to podium she stated: "I will find a prominent place garbage for that, later on tonight. Thank you very much."
Apparently Harvard didn't think that was appropriate enough to be included in their video.

Regardless, listening to Amy Poehler's speech was a great experience. And I have to say, she's just as funny in person as she is on television.

The only thing that would have made it better would have been if the guy in front of me hadn't decided to do a fauxhawk that day...

Watch it for yourself!

Sunday, May 22, 2011

Happy Birthday, Tina Fey! ("Bossypants" reviewed)

Oh? You're a Tina Fey aficionado? You're scoffing at this blog post because her birthday was several days ago?

Well, you are right. Tina Fey was born on May 18th (I just googled 'tina fey birthday' so I know that's correct). But since Ms. Fey and I aren't close personal friends, I doubt a day or five will matter. Plus, I'm about to sing her praises, so I think she'll forgive me...

Several days ago (right around Ms. Fey's actual birthday!) I finished reading her book, 'Bossypants'.

I've been thinking about it ever since, so even though this blog is normally solely devoted to television, I'm stretching that a little bit to include a book about television (sort of) by someone who works in television (definitely).

No, I'm not going to get into that whole debate about whether or not the book is a "memoir". Because, quite honestly, I have no idea what even qualifies as a memoir anymore. And I'm not sure the reviewers from the LA Times, NY Times, or EW are any better informed than I am. So, that's a moot point.

Instead, I'm going to tell you that Tina Fey's book is full of hilarious personal anecdotes. For instance, she tells you about the day where she simultaneously shot a scene of '30 Rock' with Oprah and appeared as Sarah Palin on SNL for the first time. This appears on page 206 of her book (see, Smith professors, I'm citing even in my blog! You must be so proud). Ms. Feys mentions how she filmed scenes with Oprah, and during scene changes watched Sarah Palin on YouTube. Apparently Oprah was very concerned. As Tina Fey writes, "When Oprah Winfrey is suggesting you may have extended yourself, you need to examine your f***ing life" (p. 207). That's possibly true, for most people, but Ms. Fey seems to be one of the few genuinely successful multitaskers. Who's also funny!

Her intelligent use of sarcasm also shines through, particularly when she is responding to nasty things that have been written about her on the internet in her chapter entitled 'Dear Internet'.
In one section of this chapter Ms. Fey responds to a comment posted on where the commenter states that "Tina Fey completely ruined SNL. The only reason she's celebrated is because she's a woman and an outspoken liberal. She has not a single funny bone in her body" (p. 165). You'll probably enjoy the book if you find her response at all humorous:
""Huzzah for the Truth Teller! Women in this country have been over-celebrated for too long. Just last night there was a story on my local news about a "missing girl," and they must have dedicated seven or eight minutes to "where she was last seen" and "how she might have been abducted by a close family friend," and I thought, "What is this, the New for Chicks?"" (p. 165).
If you don't think that's funny you probably won't enjoy the book. Because honestly it is a lot of sarcastic, unapologetic humor. But I think it's worth reading, if only because I recognize nuggets of truth in it.

For instance, Ms. Fey certainly describes the average University of Virginia student aptly, and makes light of the troubles she had fitting in: "...what nineteen-year-old Virginia boy doesn't want a wide-hipped, sarcastic Greek girl with short hair that's permed on top? What's that you say? None of them want that? You are correct." (p. 58). And I won't tell you why I thought that her description of UVA students was so accurate except to tell you that I grew up surrounded by them (I hasten to add that I adore many Wahoos and love my hometown).

All I'm trying to say is that Tina Fey's book is full of short snippets of her life, and it's funny almost the entire way through. Plus, it includes lots of photos, lists, and scripts...and even a bar graph and a poem. Oh, and if I've persuaded you to read it you should probably do so in old-fashioned book form, because I've heard those images don't really show up on a Kindle.

There. This review has actually given you a piece of advice that's truly useful.

Friday, May 20, 2011

grey's anatomy season 7 finale: Unaccompanied Minor

'Grey's' Anatomy: The Seventh Season's Finale
what decisions the writers made and how they're flawed
evaluating "Unaccompanied Minor"
All right, I suppose my last post proves that I watched 'Bones' last night instead of 'Grey's'. Honestly, it was kind of a toss-up, but I knew that the 'Bones' fans would be reacting like crazy online, and I knew there would be no way to avoid seeing the answer to the sex question somewhere. And boy, was I right. Almost immediately after the episode EW posted an article and the link literally contained the words 'pregnant'. I'm sorry EW, but placing spoiler alerts in your article isn't really good enough when you're going to give everything away in the title of your link...see-->
All right, now that I'm done with that rant I'll get on to discussing 'Grey's'.

First of all, this is FULL of spoilers. So, if you don't want spoilers, don't read on. Seriously.

1. Meredith--She messed with the Alzheimer's Trial. That's an unrefuted fact. And, lucky for us Meredith is willing to own up to that. What she's not willing to own up to is the fact that it may not have been a good decision. This drives Derek crazy.

2. Derek--He finds out Meredith has screwed with his trial (and honestly, she really, really has, I mean all of his hard work is no longer scientifically valid). He says she's going to be a bad mother. Storms off. And refuses to answer her phone calls.

3. Alex--He was upset last week about Meredith's tampering with the trial and let his knowledge slip (drunkenly) to Owen. He is still pissed at Lucy (Understandably!). At the end of the episode Lucy tells him to ask her to stay and he says "go to hell". Thank you, Alex! After all if she had really 'agonized' about stealing that job out from under you then she wouldn't have to even say that to you. And what kind of a power trip is that woman on that she thinks she can screw up your life one minute and be the love of your life the next? I seriously dislike her character, and she has not done one thing to make her the least bit likable. Alex is getting drunk again at the end of this episode, which makes me wonder if the writers are setting him up for some sort of a depressed/abusing alcohol situation next season.

4. Owen--He's all kinds of wrong in this episode. First, Owen tells Alex he didn't get Chief Resident because he ratted Mer out. But we know that Alex did the right thing here. And isn't part of being Chief Resident doing the right thing? And disciplining your peers? (Avery even states this later in the episode). So why did Alex's slip cost him Chief Resident? Sure, he did it in a stupid way, but that's kind of beside the point. And Owen seems to suggest that being Chief Resident is a popularity contest, and that Alex can no longer do it because they all dislike him for what he did to Meredith. BUT Kepner is not at all popular (no one even congratulated her after she won!), and her peers don't think she deserved I don't understand Owen's rationale at all. Of course, Owen's rationale is completely screwy the whole episode: see below.

How Owen's Anti-Women
When Owen finds out that Cristina is pregnant and that she doesn't want to keep the baby he goes off on her. Despite the fact that she has always, always said that she does not want children, he throws the whole 'marriage is a partnership' thing in her face. Owen, Cristina has always said she doesn't want children and you knew that when you married her. What? You think you're so special that your desires should have overpowered hers already? Plus, I don't even want to talk about your pro-life rant at your obviously emotionally distressed wife. What I found truly remarkable was the fact that Owen kept on saying that it should be their decision, when what he clearly meant was that Cristina should do what he wants. He kept on asking her to be quiet, and to listen to him. And she actually did (which is unusual for her, and shows that she does consider him). Besides, she clearly values what he has to say, because last week when he told her she was never going to be Chief Resident, and gave her a valid reason, she accepted it. She wasn't mad, she thought about what he had to say, and she agreed. But in this episode when she repeatedly came to him and said she had thought about it and she still wanted an abortion, he kept throwing "we're a couple, we should make decisions together" into her face. I'm sorry, but who is the one who will be carrying the baby? And whose career will be put on hold for nine months, and then really (to a certain extent) forever. Cristina points out that she's not coldhearted or anti-children, and that she knows that if she has a child she will love it (and consequently change her career path, life, etc.). And Owen laughs her off! Then, at the end when Cristina comes to him with tears in her eyes and says she is having the abortion he kicks her out! It would be one thing if Cristina had told him at some point that she wanted children one day and was then making this decision. She has always always said she never wants children, and Owen married her anyway. If children were so important to Owen he should have married someone who wanted them. What, Owen? You think that women can't have unchanging values or opinions? Oh wait, I forgot that women are idiotic creatures who have constantly changing life values, and who always do whatever their husbands want.

Problems with the Derek and Meredith Situation (Version 7.0):
I take issue with two things. For one, how does Meredith making a stupid decision about a research trial have anything to do with her being a bad mother? She says to Derek that he shouldn't see things in black and white, and that she agonized over the decision. Now, while I think we're pretty much all in agreement that she made the wrong choice, that doesn't mean that she's going to be a bad mother. Umm, Derek? Teaching your kids that decisions are hard and there isn't always an easy answer isn't exactly bad parenting.

And what I really don't understand is Meredith's reaction to their discovery: 'I can't tell you anything because if I don't tell you whose drugs I switched than it won't invalidate the trial'. Well, that would sort of make sense if this was a blind-trial (for those of you who aren't researchers...a blind-trial is when the physician administering the drug has no idea if it is a placebo or the real deal. This is helpful because later when he examines the patient and writes whether or not the 'drug' is working he is not biased by the knowledge that the patient did or did not receive the real drug). But we know for a fact that it wasn't a blind trial! Every time Derek administers the meds Meredith opens the envelope, everyone holds their breath, and then Derek reads whether he is administering the real deal or not. Which calls to question, who the hell designed this research study? Yes, I understand the random selection of who is receiving the drug so that personal favors/the person who 'needs' the drug more etc. don't play a role. But, honestly, if the study isn't blind I'm not sure how they can truly measure the progress of their participants. Sorry for that medical researcher's rant. Maybe ABC should hire me so that we can have a real discussion about how to conduct clinical trials! Also, Derek shouldn't be so upset at Meredith because his whole trial isn't valid anyway.

Thursday, May 19, 2011

bones, booth, sex and baby: season 6 finale

First Comes Love, Then Comes a Baby in a Baby Carriage:
"The Hole in the Heart" & "The Change in the Game"--'Bone's' Season 6 Finale
spoiler alert
The Hints in "The Hole in the Heart"

In "The Hole in the Heart" (last week's second to last 'Bones' episode) lots of things happened. A bunch of it was just the usual: there was a murder, they solved it. But, what all the fans really cared about was the suggestion that Brennan and Booth had finally had sex.

We know for a fact that Booth and Brennan spent a night sleeping in the same bed. The super crazy fans spent lots of time analyzing each scene to determine if this sleepover involved cuddling or actual sex.

Many bloggers pointed out that in "The End in the Beginning" (a dream episode where Booth and Brennan were married) their sex scene happened at 4:47. And in "The Hole in the Heart" when Brennan gets into bed with Booth it is exactly 4:47. And that doesn't seem accidental. Plus, I personally thought it was pretty obvious that they'd had sex because of the looks that Angela and Brennan exchanged, as well as the look that Brennan and Booth shared at the end of the episode.

I could spend more time analyzing the episode, but lots of bloggers have already done that. And it's kind of a moot point now...

Because we know that Booth and Brennan had sex at least once since....

Brennan is pregnant. And Booth is the father.

How's that for a season finale?

But Was It Expected?

I was expecting something exciting to occur during the season finale, and at 9:57 when I looked at my clock and nothing at all had really happened it just raised my expectations. And I wasn't disappointed. Of course, Emily Deschanel's real life pregnancy was a hint that Brennan would get pregnant too, but we didn't know for sure.

Throughout the episode Brennan constantly made comments about a very rude child. She kept looking at Booth and saying "our child" wouldn't be like that. Of course, she referred to Booth as Buck since they were undercover as a married couple at the time. And it wasn't completely clear where her comments were headed. It was obvious that it wasn't, as her father thought, just an attempt to stay in character. But I thought that it might be leaning towards a renewal of the whole 'Booth donating sperm' storyline that was dropped a while ago. Maybe Brennan just wanted a child?

Although I somehow doubted that because she seemed more concerned than eager. She also seemed incredibly worried about Angela's delivery.

And she was distant from Booth, as both Sweets and her father point out in different scenes. I assumed that the distance between them in the diner was because they'd had sex. And perhaps it was, because it was clearly a mutual distance. But in the bowling ally when her father points out that something is weird Booth seems a little clueless...suggesting that Brennan is the true cause of this distance because she is concerned about Booth's reaction to her pregnancy.

She doesn't really have much to be worried about. When she told Booth that she was pregnant and he was the father he got a huge grin on his face. He was obviously okay with it.

What I'm wondering is how in the world she got pregnant that fast. The amount of time that passes between 'Bones' episodes normally mimics a real-life time frame (so about a week). And considering the fact that Angela was really nearing labor in last week's episode, and delivered a baby in this week's episode, suggests that very little time passed. But there is no way that Brennan would know after a week (or even two) that she was pregnant. So, what's going on there?? Seriously, any suggestions?

And how in the world are we all going to wait until next season? I want to see everyone's shocked reactions to a Booth/Brennan pregnancy. And I really want to see them actually have sex (you know, to the extent that Fox can show us that). Because I feel a little cheated by the whole 'did they, didn't they' situation which really was no solution to the 'will they, won't they' stand-off of the last five years.

Read what I have to say about next season HERE.

Wednesday, May 18, 2011

"Once Upon a Time"...New on ABC

Everyone who reads about upcoming shows has heard about the remake of "Charlie's Angels" that has been in the work for years. Well, yesterday I got two exclusive television promos from ABC...and one was for the new "Charlie's Angels". I could review that preview here but, to be completely honest, I'm far more excited about the promo I saw for the other new show, "Once Upon a Time".

The show's main character is a female bail bonds collector. But, before you think that this is just another version of a crime show, think again. Instead this woman's 10-year-old son believes that she is really a princess stuck in current day America. "Once Upon a Time" is a modern fairytale, filled with princes, curses, and magic. Two stories are told simultaneously, in one all of the characters are true fairytale characters (complete with princess gowns and medieval weapons) and in the other they are living in a modern-day world, completely unaware that their other lives exist. The premise sounds complicated, but because the show is made by the creators of "Lost", I have high hopes that they'll be able to deal well with the complexity. I'm also excited about the show because the quality of the footage that I've seen looks superb. It lacks the cheesy-quality that many fantasy shows have, and is cinematically reminiscent of a show like "The Tudors".

My one concern is that the show is going to be competing with "Game of Thrones", which already had a staunch following because of the cult level of the books that it is based on. "Games of Thrones", like "Once Upon a Time", is set in a fantasy world and has multiple storylines happening at the same time. Obviously on many levels the shows are incredibly different, but it's a question of whether or not both shows can hold a mainstream audience when they are both so focused on fantasy. However, I do think that "Once Upon a Time" will stand apart because one of its storylines is set in the modern day world. This may also make it more attractive to mainstream America, which often rejects full fantasy as 'nerdy' and 'other'. If "Once Upon a Time" is really good I may even forgive ABC for removing "Brothers and Sisters" from its lineup...maybe.

Also, does the whole "Once Upon a Time"/"Once Upon a Mattress" titling bother/confuse anyone else? I seriously almost typed the title incorrectly every time I mentioned it!

Sunday, May 15, 2011

cancellation & rehab

"Mr. Sunshine" canceled.

Matthew Perry goes to rehab.

Does anyone else think these two things may be connected?

It's sad, because the show did have some promise. But ABC clearly made major cuts.

brothers & sisters canceled (plus comments about the apparent series finale)

"Brothers & Sisters", the ABC drama which just wrapped up its 5th season, has been canceled.

In a way, I understand this decision. The show could have gone on indefinitely, considering the fact that its storylines are so outrageous that its writers could have the characters do the most insane shark jumping ever, and no one would blink an eye. However, a lot of the central cast has chosen to move on. Both Patricia Wettig (who played Holly) and Emily VanCamp (Rebecca) claim that they chose to leave the show of their own accord. And Rob Lowe (Robert) abandoned the drama for a more comedic role on "Parks and Rec". Plus, Calista Flockhart (Kitty) was barely present this season, and had announced she wanted to continue a limited appearance in a sixth season. In fact, perhaps for this reason, there was talk of "Brothers & Sisters" being renewed for a truncated sixth season run.

They didn't get this, and that is truly unfortunate. Do I think the show could have continued for another full season? Maybe. Another two seasons? I doubt it. But half a season more? Definitely.

It's not that the wedding was a horrible place to end the show. In fact, Nora Walker's voiceover at the end about families reinventing themselves summed up the show nicely. What annoyed me like crazy was the whole issue of Kitty's pregnancy. Is Seth right that it's too risky? Why didn't Kevin see through Kitty's lies? What will Kitty decide to do? And when will Sarah figure out that Kitty (and not Paige) is the pregnant one? Oh, and changing the subject slightly, what's up with Sarah's crazy half-sister?

It's clear that the writers of "Brothers & Sisters" planned to answer these questions next season. And they could have easily done so in a shortened 6th season. Frankly, I don't understand why ABC couldn't have given us that. For those of us who have been loyal viewers of the show for five years this abrupt, poorly constructed ending is far less than we deserve.

Tuesday, May 10, 2011

new series this fall. get excited. maybe.

New Pilots Coming This Fall hopefully to a t.v. near you:
aka Keeping Actors' Family Members in the Network Television Tree

no. not this kind of pilot.

Look's like Amy Poehler's husband, Will Arnett (of "Arrested Development" fame) is keeping it in the family. Emily Spivey, the writer of his wife's hit t.v. show ("Parks and Recreation") is the writer of his new show, "Alpha Mom". Oh, look, it also might be on NBC. Maybe it will even be on the same night as "Parks and Rec". Actually, that wouldn't be so bad. I've been missing Will Arnett ever since Gob was kicked off the air. Still, is this going to be yet another excuse for delaying the "Arrested Development" movie? Greeaaat.

Other networks appear to believe in this whole 'support the family' thing too. Zooey Deschanel (the only reason why "Failure to Launch" was funny) is starring in a new pilot. The show is called "The New Girl" and is about an elementary teacher who's unlucky in love, and lives with three guys. My only concern is that it's written by Liz Meriwether, who also wrote "No Strings Attached". Which, frankly, was a terrible waste of time. Still, I have hopes for the show. And, oh. Look. It's on the same network as big sis Emily Deschanel's hit show, "Bones".

All right, this has nothing to do with family relations, but I'm still going to mention it. CBS might be airing "The Ringer", about a woman who's on the run and decides to borrow her twin sister's identity. Okay, I'll admit it sounds a bit like a Lifetime movie plot (actually, I think I saw that Lifetime movie). But, and here's where it gets good, Sarah Michelle Gellar is starring in it. Honestly, after the disappointment of "The Wonderful Maladys" (which I have to say, I think had a much better premise), I'd just like to see her on the air again.

Here's an article about some more potential series. Any other exciting ones you've heard about?

Sunday, May 8, 2011

questions about "dexter"

I just started watching "Dexter" which, luckily for me, was on Netflix Instant. I really do like the show. I think it's a clever idea (I suppose I should really be congratulating the author of the book it's based on), nicely filmed, and well-acted. I only have one problem. I figured out who the killer in the first season was the second that he appeared on the screen. Quite literally, I saw him and knew it.

I think the suspense was supposed to be there for the next several episodes before they revealed to the viewers who he was...but it wasn't.

Is this going to continue for the rest of the series? I hope they get a little more clever in future seasons...
Quality of acting: A//Quality of filming & editing: A//Quality of mystery: C//"Dexter": A-

Have you seen the show? Can you reassure me and tell me that it gets better?

Tuesday, May 3, 2011

fondue for two: brittany, santana & gay glee

dear ryan murphy, brad falchuck, ian brennan, and anyone else minimally/majorly involved in the creation of 'glee',

'fondue for two' should be its own show. at the very least i'd like some quality webisodes.
seriously. it may have actually been the highlight of this week's episode. and it almost made me forget that santana is still completely in the closet, and that she and brittany are no closer to dating. which i really, really want to happen, fyi. they are one of the only reasons i put up with your whiny characters. you know who i'm talking about.

much love, -em

p.s. thanks for giving us gay people who aren't completely stereotypical. i love kurt as much as the next person, but i love it even more that brittany and santana are popular/cheerleaders/etc. and i know many people will claim they're not representative of the true queer community/that they're just another pair of t.v. lipstick lesbians, but it's nice to show that there are completely typical, mainstream high schools kids who just happen to be gay/bi.oh, and bravo for being a little less dramatic about it (not that that's hard) than 'pretty little liars'. also, brittany's rainbow belt in her 'fondue for two' clip is hopefully foreshadowing of things to come. right?

'Bones' renewed!

David Boreanaz tweeted on Monday night that "Season 7 is GO for 'Bones'"! This should come as no big surprise, although 'Bones' doesn't always lead in its time slot, its numbers are consistently good. What's more interesting about this announcement is that Fox had formally stated they would not be releasing the information until later this month. And technically Boreanaz overstepped his bounds by announcing the show, when the announcement should have been in the control of Fox's PR department. Boreanaz is obviously a lead actor on the show, as well as an executive producer, so its unlikely that Fox will reprimand him. Still, it makes me a little annoyed that he feels he can do whatever he wants. Basically he's just renewing that iffy feeling I had about him when his affair came to light.

Of course, I'm also super excited that 'Bones' is officially coming back!