We miss you, Chris. Thanks for doing it.

Uh. You're welcome?

In a word: no. When Updike wrote the book, he wanted to break free of his generally misogynistic mold and created women who weren't whorish, stupid or baby killers.

Some argue, yes, that the portrayal of women as witches only reinforces negative stereotypes, but Updike disagreed. "Let us respectfully construe the word 'witch' as 'free woman," he explained, while also assuring critics that the book was "one attempt to make things right with my, what shall we call them, feminist detractors." Political or no, the book was pure Updike: a dirty, satirical examination of American ways.

While most of the original's sumptuous descriptions couldn't be directly translated to film, at least the 1987 adaptation provided an excuse to bring three lovely actresses — Cher, Michelle Pfeifer and Susan Sarandon — onto one screen. Plus, it's pretty damn good and was wildly popular, which explains why Hollywood types continue to salivate over the story of three magical women and the man they love, Darryl von Horne. Separate pilots were shot in 1992 and 2002. Neither made the cut, obviously. So why would ABC have a go?

It's unlikely they wantto make a feminist statement, nor do the show's previews have much hint of satire — or even brains. And certainly a network show can't be as sexy as the book or the movie, although the writers will definitely try.

No, the network appears to be trying to capitalize on pop culture's supernatural obsession while also attempting a revival of its Desperate Housewives brand of quirky soap. None of that should be surprising considering the remake mania that has swept the nation as of late, not to mention the recent spate of spooky soaps.

But will viewers buy it? Who knows. The reviews haven't been great. Washington Post critic Tom Shales already says he wants it to "disappear," while the Boston Herald says the show has "all the markings of being an early casualty of the season." That's not very promising. This writer loves the show's more recognizable stars, Lindsay Price and Rebecca Romijn, and I hope it doesn't get axed right away, but even on paper this sounds like an unnecessary, doomed mission, so I'm not holding my breath.

It's hard to know what Updike would say about this whole mess, because he's dead, although this quote may provide a hint: "Americans have been conditioned to respect newness, whatever it costs them." That's obviously no longer true.

The Hollywood Reporter passes on word that Huffington has joined forces with How I Met Your Mother executive producer Greg Malins to concoct a new ABC series about three newbie Congressional members trying to make their way in our nation's capital:

The 20th Century Fox TV-produced project centers on the friendship of three freshman members of Congress — two men and a woman — who live together in D.C.

"One is swept up in the movement of change and goes to D.C. to make a difference; one has been in politics for a long time; and one is a master of the media and sound bites," Malins said.

The project will draw inspiration from real-life Washington figures.

Apparently Malins and company think DC is the hottest ticket in Hollywood. You know, because Barack Obama has made the District cool again. But has it really?

A number of DC-based shows tried — and failed — to make it to the small screen this season, yet television big-wigs axed the ideas. And, honestly, we can't blame them. Our nation has become hyper-politicized and the very thought of a fictionalized account of our collective national struggle seems, at best, a lame attempt at zeitgeist-related desperation.

Patrick Goldstein of the LA Times offers three reasons why remakes are all the rage. First, despite some duds, many remakes do make scads of money, as exhibited by Star Trek. Second, the audience likes them. Finally, after years of rejecting the remake, directors are now keen on the idea.

There was once a time when filmmakers used their craft to elevate their ingenuity, vision and originality. Sadly, those traits are few and far between these days and, rather than stretch their own lazy imagination, filmmakers claim they're "reinventing" previous big screen forays. Bullshit.

While people like Rob Zombie may want to call themselves "auteurs," no self-respecting artist would take someone else's work, shoot it from a different angle — or, heaven forbid, in 3D — and display it as an example of their bottomless creative well. But, like any business, Hollywood's ruled by a little thing called supply-and-demand and can't be held entirely accountable for this developing trend.

The public's only endorsing this sort of behavior: by going to remakes, we are tacitly telling Hollywood, "Hey, it's okay: we crave nothing new. We can't stretch our tiny minds to understand — or even demand — an entirely innovative film going experience." No, we're all telling upcoming filmmakers that we'll happily consume any well-trod, familiar story.

We can blame Hollywood all we like, but it's really the public who's encouraging laziness on the part of our entertainers. It's we who are helping erode the foundations of America's collective imagination, thus giving rise to remakes like Fame, The Taking of Pelham 1,2,3 and, why?!, Footloose. This isn't nostalgia. This is a sad indictment of our insatiable love for all things safe, secure and ultimately conventional. And it's for that reason that we don't deserve entertainment at all. Not until we can prove we need more than flashing lights and shiny objects to get us off.

While, yes, Brown did discuss his family's familiarity with domestic violence — his step-father hit his mother, Joyce — but he brought nothing else new to the table. Rather, the pop star skirted most of King's questions, particularly the specifics of his and former girlfriend Rihanna's relationship.

When asked about alleged past blow-outs, Brown simply furrowed his brow, feigned ignorance and let his lawyer try to pin the blame on a probation officer, who was obviously mistaken and made a mistake in citing past incidents in the official report.

Fine, okay. That's what lawyers do: they make their clients look better than they are. But Chris really didn't help, for he came off as, quite simply, a man who was doing what he thought needed to be done: appearing on national television in a bid to clear the air, but, in the end, not really clearing the air.

The most Brown did to address his violent streak was to blame his youth: no one taught him and Rihanna how to love one another; relationships get heated; there's no class on controlling anger. Really? One would think that after watching his mother, who, for the record, we like, get beat up on, Brown would have more respect for women.

Even the singer's dimwitted attempts at chivalry, like not discussing the specifics of the infamous night (out of "respect") came off as nothing more than an endeavor at saving face. When presented with the photo of a black, blue and bloodied Rihanna, Brown could simply mutter that he couldn't believe the showdown went down and expressed his luke-warm disappointment in himself.

While surely he and his publicity team thought tonight's appearance would help rehabilitate his image, Brown's overall emotionless will likely only strengthen the image of him as a villain. Too bad, because we used to really like him. Now he just looks like a jerk.

He would have been better off flying under the radar and then coming back with something so spectacular that the world forgot all about his violent temper and focused on his talent, which has now been tarnished forever by both his girlfriend-beating and terrible CNN appearance.

This time she's working with Pete Yorn. How lucky he must feel to get this opportunity. I mean I guess you can't really blame the dude, here he has ScarJo, of all people, coming up to him like "Hey how would you like to spend weeks in the studio with me and my attractive body?" And he's like sure, okay, let's do it, hell, Pete Yorn can go do his own albums later on so why would he say no? I mean she got Tom fucking Waits, America's coolest living man, to say yes, and he certainly does not need Scarlett Johansson's help, with his songs, in any way shape or form, thank you very much, so her powers of persuasion are very real, my friends.

You can listen to the first single here, which is not bad except that ScarJo has this underlying robotic quality in her voice, which is just one of the many reasons she should not be making songs. The album comes out September 8 so be sure to boycott it.
[Pic via]

Today Condoleezza Rice signed a three-book deal worth $2.5 million. Okay, maybe a bit more than you want to hear from Condi, but she was Secretary of State and all that, and presumably saw George Bush drunk and naked dozens of times, so she could conceivably sell a few books.

Earlier this month, Diane Keaton got a book deal reported to be worth more than $2 million. Does she have that many fans, really? I don't know, I doubt it, but maybe, who knows? She was in some good movies!

But this?

The comedian Kathy Griffin is writing a memoir, and according to three sources with knowledge of the deal, her literary agent at Endeavor, former Dutton editor-in-chief Trena Keating, sold it at auction last week to an editor at Random House's Ballantine imprint for more than $2 million.

Unless this is titled "Knocking the Dicks Out of My Mouth: 100 Celebrities I Have Slept With Who Would Do Anything For That Fact to Remain Secret," by Kathy Griffin, we fear that the book industry may be losing its grip on reality. [NYO]

Or, you know, as we like to call it: Joe Versus the Volcano.

The bad news? According to Slashfilm, the movie's title (assuming it does ever get made, and isn't simply consigned to Crowe's pile of bad ideas that includes a Jonathan Lipnicki-toplined Jerry Maguire 2) would be Deep Tiki. As in, if this movie comes out, the careers of all three participants would be in...no, we just can't say it. We can't say "Deep Tiki" again. Uttering its name only gives it more power.

[Photo Credit: AP]

• Reese Witherspoon says Cameron Crowe’s Next Film has Been Postponed [Collider]

• Cameron Crowe’s Deep Tiki Postponed; Iron Man 2’s Production Title [Slashfilm]

• The Rachael Ray Show

Following in the footsteps of DeNiro, Cage will portray Al Capone in "The Untouchables: Capone Rising".

Directed by Brian DePalma, the flick is a prequel to his 1987 classic "The Untouchables", and revolves around the early dealings of the infamous gangster with Jimmy Malone - the Irish cop role that won Sean Connery an Oscar.

After the disappointment that was The Black Dahlia, we suppose it's natural that DePalma might want to return to the familiar world established in one of his most commercially and critically well-received films. What drew Cage to the project, however, is less apparent, as the straightforward mob story appears on the surface to offer the esoteric actor none of the more colorful character flourishes he's been drawn to in his recent work. Perhaps DePalma has made assurances that this Capone won't be the one-note monster of the first film, but a far more complex and emotionally resonant one, whose brutality and lawlessness were part of a life-sparing deal with the devil that required him in exchange to haunt the criminal backrooms of Prohibition-era Chicago in a bear suit carrying a flaming baseball bat.

• Nicolas Cage Confirmed As Capone In 'Untouchables' Prequel [MTV Movies Blog]