* This blog is dedicated to the bich (oh yes, I KNOW I spelled it wrong!), moderators at TWOP. Without Strenga et AL, I'd be happily posting-away along with the best of them. Unfortunately, TWOP is a little too heavy-handed, high-falootin' and downright unfriendly.
*(added 2011)-Amended to mean Strega's Real Housewives forum(s) and of course those Bravo Blogs that eat your comments w/o posting them. I still visit TWOP for the best snark.

*(Added April 30th, it has come to my attention that some of the rumors posted on this blog are definitely FALSE. Most rumors are clearly labeled as such, but in case I missed any, please keep that in mind)

Monday, June 3, 2013

Princesses of Long Island Are Bad For The Jews! (and humanity as well)

The only blog that I've read today about last night's premiere of Princesses of Long Island, was Ilana Angel's (link here) Keeping It Real, in The Jewish Journal. I don't think that she liked it either. She mentioned several times how embarrassing these people were to her personally as a Jewish person.

I'm not a Jew, but I am a woman, and a human-being, and thanks to Bravo, they made us ALL look bad.
Last night on Watch What Happens Live, Andy Cohen didn't have much to say at all about the "princesses", (lower-cases "p" intended!)-but he did manage to squeeze-out a grimace when he mentioned that the program had aired.

As I was thinking of a title for this post, I thought about what Ilana had said in her blog, and Andy's trademark© game, "Good for the Jews, or Bad for the Jews?", came to mind. (Hmmm--did Andy get some crap for that game? I haven't seen that gimmick in a very long time.)

Maybe Andy's telling but silent facial gesture was his way of biting his tongue, because if there were ever perfect candidates to win the "Bad for the Jews"-game, it would be the Princesses of Long Island.
Why? Because. Like Ilana Angel, who hails from the West somewhere near Hollywood-land or LA, I live in an area of the country-(East Coast), that counts Jewish people as part of the population of people that I come in contact with every day. It was a culture shock for me when I learned that the rest of the US is not as fortunate as I am when it comes to diversity. (Uh-oh, now I'm starting to sound like what irritated me most about these self-titled royalty!-Bragging about my blessings.).
And maybe that is what rubbed me the wrong way about this show? No, it wasn't exactly the braggadocio. It was that combined with the attitude that their good fortune somehow made them better than everyone else.
But Ilana is right to wonder if last night's freak-show could be what someone in the majority of the country thinks are stereotypical Jewish families, because most people don't have a "real life" example. And since I live in New Jersey, I know how that feels when it comes to Reality television examples lol.

Ashlee White,(her Twitter-I think?) who in my opinion doesn't deserve the bandwidth that it takes to type her name, was quick on the Twit to issue an "apology" for her disastrous introduction. It's clear that she has "issues", and in scenes of episodes to come, (oh please God let Bravo kill this series early so I don't have to accidentally watch more episodes and actually like her), we see that she is an actual hot mess. Her female "Napoleon Syndrome" is apparent, but there are revelations of emotional problems promised along-with the physical ailments alluded-to on her Twitter timeline.  Her timeline was shady too, with an apology for being "hacked"-(I didn't see the "hacked" Tweets darn it and they've been deleted), a reference to her surviving two strokes and a diagnoses of Lupus, and the general impression that being on TV was her main ambition in life. If she weren't so petite, I think she would have thanked "all the little people"-but her own shortcomings, (I could not resist I'm sorry), and the personal challenges that accompany her stature, probably stopped her short there. (OK-no more of that I promise).

Here's what I'm sure was a pre-planned apology for how she came-across:
copied from Twitter

The "Freeport" scene was where she had what looked like a panic-attack where she unloaded a diaper-full of verbal diarrhea to her Daddy via cell-phone, (yes-she was driving.)-while going to visit her '"less fortunate""-(the double quotation marks are for sarcasm!)--friend in the ""Ghetto"" of Freeport.
A pretty face explaining-away her ugly behavior. And it's too bad about her dad too, because although he was lovable at first, his own faux-puax of encouraging his daughter's insanely incorrect, (and obviously politically incorrect), BS, disgusted me.

So by this time the viewers have had it hammered into our brains that the area of Long Island that the "princesses" reside in is what the rest of us wretched huddled ghetto-dwelling, metal-fence with that HORRIBLE "green-plastic-stuff" masses call "where the rich people live". And where Reality Television, Bravo-watchers especially call, "where are the bankruptcy files posted?"-area.

Yes there are promises of schadenfreude, (and yes I still have to look that one up), but this particular section of Long Island does not appear to be the transient Real Housewives of New Jersey McMansion, ready to float-away with the next hurricane, or financial fraud committed to keeping an expensive-looking roof over one's head. Although condescension and superiority towards other people is usually a mistake of the classless nouveau riche, this train-wreck waiting to happen, looks more like exactly what Bravo promised us it was. Just a bunch of over-grown, unmarried single woman. With a little of what one Twitterer called "the Jets vs. the Sharks"-Long Island style.

Comcast made the first episode of this available On Demand before it premiered and I happened to catch someone watching it just as I was alerting them to the time of the premiere. I told them that I could not watch it with them at that time because I intended to watch it when it aired. This pre-viewer said that they were already half-way through watching it, and that I had to see this one girl's fiance' because there had been an astonishing GAYDAR all-points-spoiler being issued.

When someone tells me that their GAYDAR has been activated, I pay attention, if only to see if mine is calibrated accurately. "Hmmm. If you say so." I said. Yeah, he seemed a little "swishy", but what do I know?
By the time that the show was airing, I was already hot & heavy on my Twitter timeline and I had to issue my own re-TWaction (here's my Twitter) of sorts. For a minute there I thought that I had outed this guy on Twitter, so I followed-up with an, "I'm just repeating what someone else said"-Tweet to try and cover my butt there.

I really did feel bad about that for a second, and I probably will never do that again. When I hit send with my borrowed observation,
 " Amanda your boyfriend is gay. That's fine but you know that right?"
--I was convinced of it myself for some reason, and it was right after my beloved Atlantic City was also "royally" insulted during this show. I actually have the worst GAYDAR and I never guess about someone's sexual persuasion. Unless someone is officially OOTC, (out of the closet), I just never go there, but this guy, and this show, were kind of asking for it in my opinion. After I issued my next post where I took back what I said, I noticed that so many other Tweeters were also "outing"-Jeff Hoffman that his girlfriend, princess Amanda had a Tweet of her own which said something like,
   "Dude-stop telling me that my fiance is gay!!! He's not!"
-Jeff Hoffman-
OK. I also gleaned from Amanda's timeline that her not-gay fiance is the dead-ringer look-alike brother of that weaselly actor from Suits and other productions Rick Hoffman.  

Amanda already has her own Facebook Fan-Page set-up. What is there to like? No one even knows who she is. She's only been "on display" for one episode!

After the experience that was viewing this crap-fest, which came directly after watching the season premiere of The Real Housewives of New Jersey, and having fun watching the fur-fly on Twitter, where I had proclaimed that I would strictly be Hate-watching Season 5 of RHONJ, I just didn't know how much hate I could digest for the next umpteen Sunday nights. I could be wrong, but I think that these two shows are scheduled back-to-back for the entire season(s). It might be too much. The Real Housewives of New Jersey is pretty detestable, but Princesses of Long Island is completely unworthy of my spite at this point.

Sure they made an attempt at a plot, but unless the entire thing is a joke, (something I wonder more and more about Bravo's offerings), I don't need to get more infuriated than I've already committed myself for.
They ended episode one with a battle royal fight cliff-hanger of course. Ilana noticed something that I didn't see in the scene. One of the main characters in the fight appeared without nail polish, yet when seen from another angle, her nails were polished. Who stops in the middle of a big dramatic scene, (literally haha)-to polish there nails, and wait for them to dry? Only someone waiting for the crew to come back for lunch so that they can finish acting in a scene.

Like Real Old Housewife, (who I missed on Twitter last night) has said, why should I invest myself in believing that there is anything worth commenting on if Bravo doesn't have enough respect for the viewers to come clean about how scripted their shows are? Taking the scripts from West Side Story, and Fiddler on The Roof, throwing them in a blender and assembling the cast and crew on Long Island is an interesting idea. For drama. Pretending that it's reality is something sinister.

I'm pretty sure that I will not be watching any more episodes of Princesses..., unless Bravo officially let's us all in on the joke that it is. And soon. I may give them one more chance to blow my already hate-filled mind, but that's it. (Unless it gets really good somehow ;)).

Sunday, April 14, 2013

Fake Fake Fake! I'm calling FAKE on Sex Video!

I like to check TMZ.Com, and I even leave the channel on if the television show happens to come on.
Of course I like to read the comments too. This "Teen Mom" porn story has been intriguing me lately.

I would guess that about 70% of the comments posted comment on the girl's looks. "Face of a camel", and "Horse face", seem to be the consensus. (ooh that's mean!)

But what REALLY gets to me is that almost everyone agrees that there IS a sexporn-video. The "evidence" of the existence is pretty cheesy if you ask me. Just a dumb photo of the two actors in question holding -hands, and all the "gossip"/SPIN-about an "alleged" production.

Another comment that I have seen, and yes I researched it and NO it does not appear to be true, and yes I even Tweeted @Tmz to ask (me):"Your commenters say that Vivid entertainment has a financial interest in TMZ. Is it true?".....so far no answer. But it does not appear like there is an ownership interest between the two companys.

Vivid Entertainment is the adult entertainment company who distributes a lot of the celebrity, (yes, including the famous Kim K, porn. And they are, (according to this strange story), the company who Teen Mom "HIRED"?????

wait a minute. Yeah, the most recent update to this story now has Teen Mom PRODUCING PORN! I don't know how the pornographic movie industry works, but wouldn't this be like an actor calling-up oh say Universal Pictures, and saying,
"Hi, I want to produce, and star in a movie using your studio." -random actor
Yeah, it just doesn't work like that does it? But THAT is what this Teen Mom is now saying. She is claiming that she PAID to have VIVID ENTERTAINMENT record her sex video, and that she HIRED a professional porno actor as her co-star.

The hired-hand has been quoted regarding this as saying that he is NOT a prostitute! I'm sorry but that is utter garbage as well! He was referencing the "alleged" sex-video that he allegedly was HIRED to perform-in. Hired to perform sex-acts. That is the definition of prostitution. Its all so ABSURD!

Even-if this young woman had actually done what is being claimed, (produced a sex-video), I have to ask, Is that a good investment for someone in her position to be making? But I won't rack my brain on that too much since I really think that entire thing is a GOOF.

What I am saying, is that I think that we the public, TMZ fans, and media consumers, are being jerked-around and PLAYED. Personally, I do not believe that there IS a sex video! I think that there is nothing but hot air and SPIN.

I could be wrong, but the whole story is so utterly DUMB, that it just doesn't make any sense. Notice that I'm not bothering to post Teen Mom's name. Although I would rather not even comment on this publicity STUNT, (thus awarding them more publicity!), I certainly won't give this chick's name any space on my blog.

While I was researching Vivid, I happened to notice that Melissa Rivers was linked with the owner of Vivid. http://www.shalomlife.com/culture/16351/the-perfect-jewish-couple-melissa-rivers-porn-king-steve-hirsch/ I wonder if Joan Rivers thought that her daughter was keeping it classy with that match?

And one more observation on the nonsense that TMZ expects us to believe, is that IF there were a porno, that Teen Mom has NOT already signed, sealed, and received PAYMENT from Vivid! (unless IF there were a porno, and she was working based-on sales).....but the idea, that this big studio would allow someone to use their company to produce a porno, and then they didn't OWN it themselves??? That they would have to pay for the rights for it AFTER they made the porno? No. Just NO. I just do not believe it.

Wednesday, February 6, 2013

Real Housewives Wiki-War!

Just a little update here about a serious problem. For years I and other people have been utilizing Wikipedia to source and research, and contribute info. about The Real Housewives.
What I am about to try and explain, has actually happened BEFORE! And the matter was resolved. (the info. was restored).
The information that I am talking-about is the signature, title-card, "quotations".
 "I have a taste for luxury and luxury has a taste for  me"-Sonja Morgan/Season ?
-Those "quotes"-for want of a better way to describe.

Currently, there is what is known as an "edit-war", going-on on Wikipedia. The "quotes", are being deleted and the deletion is being undone and the undoing is being undone again.....
The parties involved, (the ones doing the deleting/removal of information), apparently do not watch the shows and they do not understand the significance of the information no matter how many different ways it is explained.
As far as I am concerned, it is not worth my time to continually police and defend the information when I feel like I am being bullied by Wikipedia editors who are more concerned about Wiki-policy and showing-off their status and knowledge of Wiki-short-cuts on Wikipedia than truly helping to build an encyclopedia of relevant information.
I am going to post a few links to the problem here  THIS IS WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE BEHIND THE SCENES- HERE is the TALK page TRYING to discuss and I'll try and update the situation. In the meantime I am considering claiming the info. and posting it somewhere else for safe-keeping. If I have to write code etc. I may as well be doing something that is not going to be deleted the minute that I let my guard -down.
Although this is a problem concerning The Real Housewives repository of information on Wikipedia, the problem is Global as far as Wikipedia information on ALL topics is concerned. It is a constant battle for legitimate information to remain on Wikipedia. Deletions are rampant in all topics and all you have to do is look at the editors pages to see that they are more concerned with being bureaucratic and showing how powerful they are and knowledgeable about Wiki-policy and short-cut jargon.
That is why sites like EncyclopediaDramatica.org and others are needed.

Wednesday, June 20, 2012

Getting Better but Jill Z is still Missing.

I didn't post a blog for episode 2 because I tried to watch it more than once, but I could not get past the first ten minutes without falling asleep.
I had low-hopes for episode 3, titled, "How to Succeed in Business without a Notepad.", and I was very pleasantly surprized. When the show was over, I felt satisfied with The Real Housewives of New York City, in a way that I haven't felt in a long time.
And yes, my other thought was that Bravo could have got it completely right IF they had kept Jill Zarin with the new cast members. And maybe Alex too.
I mentioned it on Twitter, but its worth repeating, speaking-of Alex McCord, she has created something interesting with her weekly video reports hosted on RumorFix. http://rumorfix.com/2012/06/alex-mccord-the-truth-behind-those-housewives-trips/
Her first report seemed a little stiff to me, but now that I can see how she is developing a style with this and finding her niche, I like it.
Finally they let NYC play a part in the show! Who cares about Ramona? Her drama was distracting in my opinion. My favorite part was when the women explained how leather is for Downtown. (And of course they were all following the unwritten fashion rules themselves).
And the talk about taking the subway? (Alex gives some inside info. about this in her report)
The pool on top of the roof? Loved it!
Now you might think that maybe I'm watching the wrong show? Maybe I should be watching a real estate show that tours great Manhattan real estate?
No, I like to see how the Housewives live in the city. although I'm not sure how I feel about Aviva as a cast-member yet, I was able to get some idea about what it must be like living and raising a family in the city during the scene that was recorded with her family in her bathroom.

LuAnn in my opinion, is struggling to be relevant this season. I like that she didn't try to force the feud any further with Ramona, but now I'm worried that she could do something crazy like get some poor surrogate somewhere pregnant, just to have some control over her drama.
I still cannot remember all of the new cast-member's names, and Ilana Angel pointed-out something on her blog that also bothered me, and that is the dental-work of the new gals.
Ilana calls it an "overbite'-but what I'm seeing just looks like extra-extra-large sets of chompers. Teeth so big that they don't look like they can fit in a person's mouth. Maybe "big teeth" is the East Coast version of big lips? Remember Cindy from last season and her teeth? So are giant teeth a status symbol in NYC now?

I know that The New York Daily News started a little fuss about The Real Housewives of New York City ratings. The question of whether firing Jill Zarin was a mistake that can't be fixed is asked, and apparently Jill was approached and said that she is still available with the condition that Alex be asked-back as well. Hmmmm. Those kind-of negotiations sound like a reality show right there! Much more interesting than creating some poor innocent child just so Luann has a reason to stay on the show.

Unfortunately, the one part of episode 3 that I didn't like, was the preview of the upcoming season. Maybe it was the way that it was edited, or the pacing was off for me after a nice entertaining episode? And although it was enjoyable, (unlike episode 2 which was unwatchable), the absence of Jill Zarin lingered. We are now into the third episode, with all of these other personalities, yet one red-headed character is still missed. I didn't like Jill's work last season as much as I liked it when she acted more like herself, but if I were Bravo, I would try to bring her back in. I'd LOVE to see some Jill in those talking head segments doing the play-by-play and some color commentary.

Personally, I was offended when Bravo released statements concerning firing Jill and Alex, and saying that they listened to what viewers wanted. The most vocal complainer about Ms.Zarin was the blog that used her name, the "hate"-blog. And although I don't want to interfere in other bloggers business, if Bravo thinks that a blog where the comments are very strictly censored, (contrary to the stated policy there), is the opinion of ALL of the viewers, well, they are wrong about that.

Tuesday, June 5, 2012

New Season New Housewives

Well we met the new Housewives and out of all three, the only one who really stands-out for me is Aviva. The other two, just kind-of blended together for me, although they did manage to get in a few Real Housewife-style, "digs".
Ramona has no filter. Having no filter is so 2010. Its no wonder that Ramona needed Mario to help her with her dirty-work. Speaking-of Mario, did he forget to put his teeth in? And is his barber mad at him? I hate to say it, but in my opinion, a lot of the trouble is about appearances. And I don't mean "owning vs. renting" in the Hamptons "appearances". I mean flat-out physical looks.
Oh-I know, its all supposed to be about money, style, class, and of course NYC, but I can't help but think that Ramona's whole problemo with LuAnn's children, is that Victoria, Luann's daughter, is prettier than Ramona's daughter, whatever her mousey little good girl name is.
And that is why I had to make the SURVIVOR logo. The competitiveness in last night's episode seemed to me to be more than the normal one-upwomanship, it felt like a matter of survival. The massive bloodbath of season 4, has these women running scared. Well-maybe not Sonja. Sonja is too cool to let it show.
Are the Real Housewives of New York ALL being shown in their opening-shots, without their familys? I only noticed Luann as a "solo", but I'll be watching the beginning very carefully next week.
I'm sure that I wasn't the only one wondering how Jill Zarin would have done with the new mix of Housewives. And Alex-I missed them both-but Kelly not so much ha ha. I'm just not feeling Ramona and if it would have been up to me, she would have been fired instead-of Jill. But I guess she can be entertaining and the idea that she would try and blackmail Luann is scandalous.
As far as the previews for the season, I'm guessing that it is Aviva who has the "agoraphobia/apartment-phobia", or whatever neurotic problem they referred-to. The only reason I'm assuming that is because of that little exchange in the restaurant about artificial-sweetener.
I was a little offended at the way the one new-Housewife, declared that talking-about one's children made one boorish. That one may be the one to watch-out for, I think it was the Princess? Still not interesting enough for me-(yet), to remember her name. "I'll be back when you're done with the mommy-talk"-wow. And just in case anyone missed her point, she continued in her talking head.
Speaking-of children, I'm sure that I'm not the only one who's curious about that teaser with Luann and Jacques.  Something about the way this was mentioned in promos, which was something like, "Luann is exploring options"-(for having a child with Jacques).....is anyone else thinking that they are hinting at a surrogate?
Life imitating The Truman Show anyone? They wouldn't-would they? Someone getting themselves knocked-up is one-thing, but purposely creating a human-being for reality television, just seems like it should be illegal or something-doesn't it? One thing I think that Luann would NOT do, and that is put herself at risk of having twins, or more ha ha. And at her age, (Wikipedia says that she is 47), even without fertility-treatment, IF she was able to get pregnant, she is at a much higher risk for twins. But I guess we'll just have to wait and see, or as they say on Bravo, "Watch what happens".

Tuesday, February 28, 2012

Saturday, December 10, 2011

Why I don't like Sponsor Boycotts

The post directly before this one, is a plea to see less of the Kardashians. No where in that post, did I suggest boycotting, or even contacting the sponsors of the show. On my NJ Housewives blog, my most recent post does mention my own personal-protest, which involves my resolve to NOT tune-in to The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills, except for re-runs. So, that is a bit of a boycott, but in no way do I ask anyone else to join me in my protest. I DO support letting producers, (Bravo), and responsible parties know how we the viewers feel about what is broadcast. And yes, I support organising-efforts in that regard (link to my NJ Housewives blog here) , and in the instance of certain highly controversial events, for example allowing the people who didn't want to be known-as the White-House Party-Crashers, to appear on The Real Housewives of DC.
I recently visited a site called, "Boycott Kim Kardashian", http://boycottkim.com/ and I was surprized to see the call for a massive sponsor boycott, which takes-up the bulk of the site.
In yet one more example, (with a twist of course), today on Reality Blurred (link to article here), I see a request to avoid a sponsor, because the sponsor pulled its advertising from a reality-show that could be considered controversial.
Advertising and sponsoring popular programs has been-around longer-than television. Its the reason why AM/FM radio is still "free". "Soap"-operas, got their name from the companies who advertised their products to the audience. Even William Shakespeare had wealthier patrons who supported, (and they still do!), bringing entertainment to the public. And that is why you will never see me calling BOYCOTT!, on a sponsor.
Why punish the sponsors for giving us something? I consider it to be a compliment, that a sponsor would choose to spend its advertising dollars to pay for my entertainment.
Advertisers do extensive research in viewer demographics. One thing that the BOYCOTT people and I agree-with, is that most commercials and ads are not random. They are specifically targeted to reach YOU and ME, and what they have identified as reality-television viewers. How can alienating sponsors, or asking them NOT to pay for reality-television, benefit the viewers?
Ultimately, sponsors can determine advertising effectiveness with product sales. There is an old rumor that razor companies produce sharper and better razors, to entice consumers to stick with their brand, to coincide with the increased sales that are expected as a result of the Superbowl Sunday advertising blitz. 
So we develop intimate relationships with these companies, and when something disturbs us in the shows that they sponsor, we naturally want to hold someone responsible. The list-of sponsors that we are asked to avoid on the Boycott Kim page, is so extensive that if anyone seriously tried to abstain from all of them, it would make shopping difficult. I saw one brand-name in there that I use due to allergies to other products. How would my family breaking-out in hives, affect the Kardashian empire? It wouldn't. And that's another reason why I'll leave the manufacturing-of quality products to the companies who advertise. And the responsibility for the content of the programs with the networks and those that have more direct input into the editing and production of the shows.