When MTV announced its plans to remake Skins in August, I knew this latest announcement was coming any day now. MTV has ordered 10 episodes of a more U.S. and probably censor friendly version of the U.K. teen drama Skins. There are no other details about the show, about where it is set or the characters, at this time.
Skins is one of my favorite shows. Its frank portrayal of teenagers living in Bristol makes Gossip Girl and The O.C. look like kindergarten. Even the somewhat disastrous Series 4 is eons better than a quality episode of Gossip Girl.
I’m going to try to not judge the American adaptation of the series, but it is going to be difficult. As usual, I will be recapping the show.
Are you excited for Skins to come to the U.S.? Can any American version really top this series?
Those promo wizzes at the CW are at it again. Last year Gossip Girl turned some heads with its OMFG campaign to kick off its second season. This year the ad campaign is WTF, or Watch This Fall.
Gotta say, this preview is not as juicy as last year. But I cannot wait to see what promotional material is released next.
Confession: I love Gossip Girl.
For months, I tried to not get sucked into the crazy and often ridiculous lives of the Upper East Siders but I only managed to hold out until January. I blame the writer’s strike. There were no new episodes of the other shows I watch so I decided to give GG a chance. It was a good life choice and now Chuck Bass has completely won me over.
Gossip Girl is known for its clever marketing. I love how edgy the promos are, mostly because I love seeing people get worked up about this stuff. The more the media and other groups declare the ads too racy, just further proves that all press is good press.
Here are five recently released promo videos so you can see exactly what I’m talking about.
55 MPH Club:
I love this show! In case you didn’t catch it, the second season of Gossip Girl premieres September 1.
Yes, I’m only a week into my whole “college experience”, but that does not mean I can’t appreciate NOT being in high school anymore. (You could give me a million dollars and I still wouldn’t go back.)
And to celebrate the unfortunate souls who are still in high school, here’s a movie list just for you.[SOURCE]
Some of y favorites from the list are: Splendor in the Grass (1961), Sixteen Candles (1984), Napoleon Dynamite (2004), Can’t Hardly Wait (1998), The Virgin Suicides (2000), Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005), Brick (2006):
Hoop Dreams (1994), Bring It On (2000), Pretty in Pink (1986), Rushmore (1998), Dead Poets Society (1989), The Last Picture Show (1971):
Donnie Darko (2001), High School (1968), Mean Girls (2004) Say Anything (1989)
Ferris Bueller’s Day Off (1986), Election (1999), Clueless (1995), American Graffiti (1973), Rebel Without a Cause (1955) The Breakfast Club (1986)
So many great movies on this list! I think Mean Creek and Blackboard Jungle were overlooked. And can any movie ever top The Breakfast Club?
You might have heard this story.
Duff slams New York Critic
Hilary Duff has issued a stinging response to the York Times movie critic who described her acting as “talent-challenged”.
Stephen Holden has consistently slammed Duff’s teen comedy movies and singled out her performances particularly.But Duff insists she isn’t making movies for New York Times readers.
She tells Elle magazine: “He doesn’t really fit the demographic. So I could really care less. Look at me, and look at where he is – sorry! Would he prefer that I take some super-adult role that is inappropriate so I would have no place to grow?”
“Suppose the next thing I did was this super-edgy independent movie where I was pregnant or shooting up. What would that do to my fanbase?“
Harsh words coming from the pop tart. But when Stephen Holden or any other critic attacks her movies, it may have something to with demographics, but not entirely.
Older reviewers can appreciate movies made for teen audiences just as someone my age can appreciate the classics. What critics are attacking, however, is the lack of quality in Hilary Duff’s films and how they are always the same mundane crap.
Maybe talentless is the wrong way to describe Hilary Duff, but if she doesn’t want to step away from her comfort zone of safe teen and family movies, she won’t be accepted by critics or moviegoers different tastes.
I was browsing Entertainment Weekly online and I found the Ask the Critic question. It goes along with what I was saying above. Here it is:
Why do critics treat bubblegum teen-oriented movies as if they’re real films? They have no artistic or intellectual merit whatsoever and only add to the dumbing down of American kids.
Because you haven’t provided any examples, I can’t gauge the scope of your disdain: Gidget? Beach Blanket Bingo? Rebel Without a Cause? Grease? Mean Girls? The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants? American Pie? Okay, let’s for a moment say you think none of the above has any artistic or intellectual merit: Still, each represents an idea what American teens are interested in, what the prevailing popular culture (marketed by adults) thinks American teens are interested in, or a potent combination of both. In such an influential genre, even a crummy, disposable title (and I’m not crazy, I won’t try to make a case for Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen’s New York Minute is worthy of analysis as a ”real” film), if only to identify how bubblegum tastes change from generation to generation. — by Lisa Schwartzbaum
That’s another perspective. All I know is that there will always be the never ending cycle of the teen queen versus the movie critic.
What is your thought on this issue? Sound off below.