<![CDATA[Gawker: defamer, robots with human emotions]]> http://tags.gawker.com/assets/base/img/thumbs140x140/gawker.com.png <![CDATA[Gawker: defamer, robots with human emotions]]> http://gawker.com/tag/defamer/robotswithhumanemotions http://gawker.com/tag/defamer/robotswithhumanemotions <![CDATA['Denise Richards' Cancellation: It's Complicated]]> Didn't we almost have it all, America? Why, it was just a few weeks ago when we learned that E! had mercy-killed its celeb reality show Denise Richards: It's Complicated, leading to cheers, emailed hugs, and exultant praise to God around the blogosphere. "Just when I think there's no redeeming the entertainment industry as a whole," said one of our commenters, "somebody makes a smart move like cancelling this famewhore's piece of crap show, and I start to see a little glimmer of light on the horizon." Get ready to bust out some candles, everybody: that glimmer's gettin' snuffed! According to Us Weekly:

"It's coming back for another season," Richards told Us at the Panasonic Lounge at the Passion for Pink luxury suite in L.A. on Tuesday.

"We start filming in a few months," Richards said.

Asked if she has any well wishes for ex husband Charlie Sheen and wife Brooke Mueller, who are expecting their first child together, Richards told Us: "I am not commenting on that situation. I hope one day get to a place but I'm not commenting right now."

We, also, hope to one day get to a "place" regarding Richards, only it is a place where we can stop commenting, on account of a cancellation that sticks. Until that day comes, we can do little but huddle around a flickering light of blue flame, rubbing our hands together for warmth as an unstoppable, unkillable Denise putters around her house, occasionally chirping, "It's so fun to have a spa day with your girlfriends!"

[Photo Credit: AP]

]]>
http://gawker.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5051783&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Clothing Exchange! Katie Holmes isn't simply...]]> Clothing Exchange! Katie Holmes isn't simply a robot with human emotions — no, she's also a style icon. Whether it's her sunglasses, hairstyles, or leggings, she's always been at the forefront of Scientologist chic...which is what made us question these baggy, rolled-up jeans she's been sporting lately while rehearsing for her Broadway debut. Now, finally, Us Weekly breaks the story wide open: Holmes is merely wearing the jeans of her husband, Tom Cruise — and isn't that the fun part of being a couple? As for the rolled-up ankles, we'll leave that to Us: "A reason Holmes has been rolling them up? She's 5'9" and Cruise is 5'7"."
[Us Weekly, Photo Credit: Splash]

]]>
http://gawker.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5034529&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[Arnold Schwarzenegger Confused by New 'Terminator' Footage, Robot Ambiguity]]> Busy accepting Bollywood paychecks, offering tank rides to children, and occasionally running the state of Colly-fornia, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has somehow carved time into his schedule to screen footage from the upcoming, unessential McG sequel Terminator: Salvation, starring Christian Bale as John Connor (and virtual unknown Sam Worthington as an amnesiac maybe-Terminator). So, does he give the new film a molten steel-dipped "thumbs up"? According to the LAT, not so much:

"I still don't know how it will play out with this one," said the star-turned-politician, who said he was given a private screening of early footage from "Terminator Salvation" by producers of the franchise reboot directed by McG. "They showed me some footage, but I don't have a feel for the movie. I didn't see enough. I wasn't sure who the Terminator was. I don't know if there is one or if he's the star or the hero. These are the things that determine the success and how the strong the movie will be."

..."There are such high standards and now there are always new standards being set for action," Schwarzenegger said. "You see that with 'Iron Man' and with the new Batman movie and that other film this summer, um, 'Wanted.' That was an excellent movie! There was this train coming down from a bridge, falling, and they're fighting inside the train car. Jesus, that is unbelievable that you can do that. To have the imagination to write it and the talent to shoot it and make it real on the screen. It's a whole new dimension."

Informed that the Wanted train car sequence didn't actually happen in real life, Schwarzenegger's jaw dropped. "Whaaaaat? And dis 'curving bullet' thing, dis is not real, too? Wait. So you are saying I am not actually pregnant? Wait until I tell Maria..."

]]>
http://gawker.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5033294&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[Everyone Who Loves 'Wall-E,' Step Forward! Not So Fast, Republicans, Fat People]]> After finally seeing Wall-E Tuesday night at the El Capitan, your easily susceptible guest blogger is comfortable calling it a colossal achievement — an assertion backed up by other reviews going live today, including Variety's and Roger Ebert's. However, not all is innocent in Pixar's mostly-silent masterpiece: Republican environmental policy takes some not-so-thinly veiled hits, thanks to the movie's pro-green message (when a corporate overlord played by Fred Willard encourages his underlings to "stay the course" in the face of catastrophic environmental disaster, you might expect him to add, "You're doing a heckuva job, Brown-E!"). Now, critics at the conservative New York Post are piling on, calling Wall-E "anti-fat."

Says outraged film critic Kyle Smith:

Wall-E...supposes that the human race of the future will become a flabby mass of peabrained idiots who are literally too fat to walk. Instead they zip around in flying wheelchairs surfing the Web, chatting on phone lines and stuffing their faces with food meant to be sucked down like milkshakes while unquestioningly taking orders from the master corporation that controls all aspects of their existence. I’m trying to think of a major Disney cartoon feature that was anywhere near as dark or cynical as this. I’m coming up blank. I’m also not sure I’ve ever seen a major corporation spend so much money to issue an insult to its customers.

The Post's Lou Lumenick weighs in, though he's careful to point out he's a fan of the film:

Many of the early early reviews, including mine, have noted this may offend Disney's target audience... it turns out that large people have been blogging angrily about "Wall-E'' since at least November. "Will general audiences (which form the bulk of Pixar’s demographic), upon seeing a fat blob 'drinking liquified food from Big-Gulp-esque cups, and forever surfing (and chatting) on chair-mounted video screens' think 'Oh, wow, so that’s what gravity does to humans!' or 'Wow, so that’s what the obesity epidemic will do to humans!' says a post at The F Word. Gripes a writer at Fatshionista: "this is so INCREDIBLY disappointing. I feel personally betrayed by Pixar right now.''

Too true! When will Pixar realize that the movie's central romance — between a square, boxy robot and a love interest shaped like a white, floating pear — promotes unreasonable body image issues? Parents of America, do not let your daughters starve yourself and sand off their sharp edges to look like EVE! Only a return trip to the overweight delights of Kung Fu Panda can save you now...

]]>
http://gawker.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5020076&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[Is Pixar's 'Wall-E' The Most Expensive Silent Movie Ever Made?]]> There exists a certain type of filmgoer (I know him intimately, for he is me) whose weakness can be summed up in four words: "Robots with Human Emotions." This sort of film fan grew up on movies like Short Circuit, thrilled to videos like Bjork's "All Is Full of Love," and even has been caught defending A.I. Artificial Intelligence (you take the good with the bad, people). A 30-second clip of Pixar's Wall-E could drive a man like this to tears, but for the other 99% of the population it will provoke nothing but head-shaking, for the $180 million Wall-E contains virtually no dialogue.

How will moviegoers react to a CG hero who isn't voiced by Jack Black or Will Smith — a character who can say little besides a chirping recitation of his own name? Sound designer Ben Burtt hopes they'll take a cue from decades past:

“We all thought about Charlie Chaplin and Buster Keaton,” Mr. Burtt said, “this energetic, sympathetic character who doesn’t say a whole lot. Most animation is very dialogue heavy. There’s dance, constant talking, punch lines. We used to wonder: How will we prepare the audience?”

While we have faith in the Pixar brain trust to solve such a problem, we hope they won't follow in the footsteps of Short Circuit 2's notorious, cut-for-TV robot hate crime. Johnny Five...dead...?

]]>
http://gawker.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5018926&view=rss&microfeed=true