BuzzSugar

News Flash: Bravo's Reality Contestants Aren't Guaranteed Success

BuzzSugar — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 13:49:30 -0700

Got 15 minutes? Then grab a cup of coffee and curl up with this interesting New York Magazine cover story about the plight of contestants from "Project Runway," "Top Chef," and Bravo's other competition reality shows.

Here's the gist: Appearing on one of these shows - and even winning - is far from a ticket to fame and fortune. First "Project Runway" winner Jay McCarroll is still couch-surfing in New York; fan favorite Andrae Gonzalo from season two has been capitalizing more on his fame as a reality star than on his skill as a designer. Prize money sometimes comes with strings attached, as it did for McCarroll in season one; even when it doesn't, Bravo still retains a lot of control over contestants' public exposure and career opportunities. An excerpt:

For the contestants, the implicit promise of these shows is that they’re time machines, compressing the brutal urban mechanics of getting ahead-the political maneuvering, the grinding incremental labor-from a matter of years to months. The problem is that reality-show success is no substitute for real-world experience. "There is something a little bit cruel about all the attention," says Ted Allen, the dignified cooking guru of Bravo’s "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" and a recurring judge on "Top Chef." "Because during the season you’re in one of the shows, you are famous for a while, and you get to enjoy all the fun of that. But you’re not someone who has any sort of expertise that’s going to keep you on television. There’s no certain road map for translating that kind of ephemeral success into a life of yachts and bling."

Few things in this story really shock me, but it is interesting to consider what (if anything) reality contestants are owed, so read more

Reality TV doesn't change the fact that succeeding in a skill-driven field still depends mostly on, you know, skill; fame tends to come later. Unsurprisingly, the Bravo alums who have done the best so far already had a business before the show: Jeffrey Sebelia, who won the most recent season of "Project Runway," had a boutique established, while Tabatha from "Shear Genius" used the exposure from the show to take in more customers at her existing salon.

Writer Jennifer Senior makes the point that Bravo owes much of its recent success to these shows and their telegenic and talented stars. And it looks like Bravo is starting to recognize that it's a two-way street: Contestants on the shows (except "Project Runway," which Bravo doesn't own) now will be offered a chance to sign with a management company that will help the insta-celebs navigate the wild waters of post-show life.

But what does Bravo - or any network that helps regular people rise to fame - actually owe its contestants once the show is done? Should the network be required to give those stars more assistance? Or should chefs, designers and stylists who appear on reality shows be savvy enough to know what to do when the show's over, even without the network's help? I lean toward the latter; I think anyone who goes on reality TV these days has to know that it doesn't guarantee success. But I suppose I can also understand why ex-contestants feel ignored while the network profits off their work. What's your take?

Source

NY Magazine Already Panning The Lovely Bones

BuzzSugar — Mon, 07 May 2007 15:14:56 -0700

Last week I brought you the news that Peter Jackson has written a screenplay adaptation of Alice Sebold's novel The Lovely Bones, a story told from the viewpoint of a 14-year-old girl who was raped and murdered. All Jackson neeeded was a studio to give him the money - and a lot of it. Variety claims the budget for Bones could run close to $90 million. Well, Jackson got someone to bite: DreamWorks.

So what will $90 million get you? New York Magazine has already reviewed Jackson's screenplay and the verdict is not great. Noting Jackson's successful fantasy-drama Heavenly Creatures, the New York Magazine writer figured The Lovely Bones would be equally promising. Not so, apparently.

Jackson doesn't get into Susie's head the way he did Pauline and Juliet's, and the incursion of the supernatural into everyday life feels showy rather than integral. The fantasy scenes in Heavenly Creatures were momentous, despite the shakiness of the special effects; though it's certain that the effects in The Lovely Bones will be brilliant, the scenes in Heaven, and Susie's interaction with Earth, don't have much magic on the page.

It certainly seems premature to dis on a movie that has a long way to go before it's a presentable film ready for critique, though I can't deny this article makes me slightly nervous for The Lovely Bones.

Source

Link Time! Omarosa Is Searching For a Husband

BuzzSugar — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 13:30:30 -0800

Omarosa is looking for love with a new reality TV show. But the biggest surprise? The Donald is helping her - Defamer

An Inglourious Basterds prequel is brewing - Marc Malkin

Uh-oh, Mad Men fans. For those romantics hoping for a Don and Betty reconciliation, chances sound grim - Daily Beast

Cobra Starship's new video is a "Hot Mess" - HitFix

Cute Reunion actor Sean Faris is joining The Vampire Diaries - Ausiello Files

Who's your favorite female author? - TresSugar

Holiday movie preview! - Moviefone

Death Cab For Cutie performs "Meet Me at the Equinox" at a Hot Topic store. Teen girls' minds explode. - Stereogum

Twitter phenom Sh*t My Dad Says is being made into a TV show - TV Squad

New York Magazine's 40 songs that define the Brooklyn sound right now - New York Magazine

Motherhood: A Harried-Mom Tale That Often Feels Tired

BuzzSugar — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 14:30:20 -0700

When you have a parenting movie set in New York, you should know better than to expect a warm-'n'-fuzzy story about the joys of having kids. In fact, Motherhood is out to prove that mothers have it rough.

The film follows Eliza Welsh (Uma Thurman), a Manhattan writer dealing with a cramped apartment, busy husband, and side-street parking while raising her two kids. A day in her life feels like a really, really long 24 hours. Eliza runs around frantically trying to prepare for her 6-year-old's birthday while composing an essay for a parenting magazine contest and squeezing in a sample sale with her mommy friend Sheila (Minnie Driver). We know that Eliza was once a great writer, but when she had kids, she decided to give up her job to raise her family. Now, she's a shell of her former self in frumpy clothes and messy hair. Simply put, Eliza is dealing with the classic parent conundrum: how do you care for your kids and still retain something for yourself? The answer? It ain't easy.

For more about what I mean, read more.

Eliza doesn't try to feign martyrdom. In fact, she often whines about her plight in a way that screams, "I'm angry, dammit!" And at first, you're angry for her too. (No woman deserves to put up with all that she does.) But as the film goes on, Eliza's bitterness knocks you over the head, and you have to you wonder - is she like this every day? Yeesh.

Luckily we have Eliza's friend Sheila for some needed comic relief. Sheila is the cool single mom to the more neurotic Eliza - she mouths off cheeky one-liners and uses her son's motorized bath toy for her "alone time." Jodie Foster also delivers a hilarious cameo as a celebrity mom swearing at the paparazzi on the playground - aka, herself. Both women keep Eliza's "what-can-go-wrong-will-go-wrong" storyline from wearing too thin.

Mothers will probably identify with either Eliza or Sheila but what about the rest of us? While the actors perform well and the movie provides laughs for those who can relate (read: parents), most of the jokes don't feel fresh, and you've probably seen similar setups on shows like The Middle or In the Motherhood or any of the other dozens of family comedies in recent years. Props to the filmmakers for giving mothers their due, but if you're not one yourself, an hour and a half with Eliza may be enough to make you rush out of the theater and buy birth control.