ah, corey

I have a friend named Melissa (who, in full disclosure, I have not been in regular contact with for awhile). If I called her, I would begin with, "Hi, Melissa, this is Melissa." She thought this was funny. What could I do? It was true.

Melissa and I were not actresses, and did not appear in several movies together, and were never featured in teen magazines. We were spared the experience of existing in that glaringly bright spot of celebrity as teenagers. And so, today, we live quiet lives away from the prodding eyes of reality TV camera lenses and A&E viewers.

The same, I am sort of sad to say, cannot be said of the Coreys. It's not news that they're in a "reality" TV show together ("The Two Coreys," which debuted last night on A&E). The news broke awhile back, and it isn't at all surprising when you consider the reality- and celebreality-saturated state of modern (as in, the past few years) television. Part of my inner 12-year-old perked up happily when I first heard about the show, but most of my inner 12-year-old is glad I missed the premier. I prefer to think of Corey and Corey from the naive perspective of a pre-teen with pin-ups all over her walls, when the greatest drama I knew of their lives was Corey H. hanging out with Alyssa Milano or Lala Sloatman (oh, the jealousy I felt), or Corey F. getting emancipated from his parents.

Corey Haim was my favorite (my favorite among all young, attractive actors at the time actually), while my best friend preferred Corey Feldman. This may have made the latter Corey's unbecoming appearance on "The Surreal Life" (which I've seen bits of) easier to stomach. More than a decade of non-Corey-centered existence also made it easier to face a bloated-drug-addict version of Corey Haim in some entertainment-news report on TV. Still, my naive, pleasantly nostalgic Corey Haim ideal has been altered. I don't want to further tarnish my former massive celebrity crush by learning more about who he is now, or at least who he appears to be on a reality TV show. I also am not interested in seeing the subject of my formerly massive celebrity crush be the butt of the reality TV joke, which most famous people on such shows are.

It's possible he's funny and likable. I don't hold it against him that he's had drug problems. But I expect that the show will be more likely to make him look bad than not (a lot of celebreality shows tend to focus on the less admirable qualities of its stars, no?). This reminds me of VH1's "Rock of Love" with Bret Michaels (who I saw in concert with Poison, who also occupied many spots on my bedroom wall, in the ninth grade). Even if these people turn out to be what you would logically expect, it's still disappointing to see them drinking like frat boys and romping around hot tubs with scantily clad women as if there's nothing tragic, empty and juvenile about it all.

It's a disappointment, often, when your personal version of who that guy in the magazine photo is turns out to be far different than the real thing. (In Bret's case, I think his music made his lifestyle pretty clear; I would have hoped he would outgrow some of that with age and experience, though.) It's easier when your teen idols grow up to fade away as they make good lives for themselves out of the spotlight, or when they grow up to be successful in their careers, known more for their talent and skill than for their grasps at second-rate celebrity. When I was 12, it would have never occurred to me that I would one day see a puffy-faced, sometimes incoherent Corey Haim on TV in a story about his drug addiction. Now, an estimated couple of years after seeing that, he at least looks healthier. I hope he is. I hope he turns out to be a stable person who can find real success without the junk that ruins people. Seeing him in a decent movie after all these years would be a treat. I'd be all about watching that.

a vent about Emmy

Emmy and I, I think, are done.

Why? Because Emmy is delusional. While sometimes honoring deserving people and shows, Emmy also rewards the mediocre. Emmy apparently doesn't watch much TV, and yet is responsible for honoring the best TV has to offer. Emmy is a poser. Sure, lots of people know about Emmy. Emmy is the best known TV award in the country. But does the modern-day Emmy deserve to be in a position of influence? Only when it gets things right.

You may have guessed by now that I disagree with the Emmy nominations announced this morning. The fact that the voting process is so screwy — and obviously incompetent, as the continued insistence on nominating popular junk like "Two and a Half Men" while ignoring, say, a good five to 10 more rightly acclaimed shows reveals — should make the blows easier to bear. But the high profile of the Emmys makes its shortcomings frustrating.

The nation should know that "Friday Night Lights" is better than the shows they're watching — "Grey's Anatomy," for example. Not that "GA" is wretched. But come on. I am not even speaking as someone who considers "FNL" her favorite show. It's not even in my top five. But it's better — the writing, the acting, the directing, the editing, the whole package — than most of the shows (or maybe all of the shows) that are nominated for Best Drama. To an extent, these decisions are about opinion. But sometimes you just have to concede to reality.

This year's "Lost" was better than those shows, too. I will acknowledge that I haven't seen a full episode of "Boston Legal" or maybe "Grey's Anatomy" this year, but based on what I've read and my own previous, though limited, exposure to these shows, I wonder HOW ON EARTH they could be considered better than "Lost," "Friday Night Lights" or "Battlestar Galactica," the latter being a show I also have limited exposure to, but enough to know it shouldn't be snubbed every year.

I wonder how much exposure Emmy voters have to all these shows. Are they really watching "Two and a Half Men" and thinking, "Gee, that Charlie Sheen does some incredible work"? Are they really watching complete episodes of "Friday Night Lights" and thinking, "Wow, that Kyle Chandler is good, but why not just blindly nominate the same people over and over instead"?

Not that Hugh Laurie doesn't deserve a nomination. Not that several nominees are deserving. But the glaring omissions are too much for me this year. I've had it. I am officially boycotting the 2007 Emmys. Even if they DID manage to have somewhat of a clue in the Comedy categories, nominating "The Office" for best comedy, Steve Carell for best lead actor, Rainn Wilson for best supporting actor, Neil Patrick Harris for best supporting actor and JENNA FISCHER for supporting actress. (Looking over a few of the bigger categories that were not announced on TV this morning, I am also happy to see that Masi Oka from "Heroes," Michael Emerson and Terry O'Quinn from "Lost" are nominated in the Best Supporting Actor in a Drama Series category.)

But I don't think I can stand to watch the whole Emmys broadcast for the sake of the comedy awards and best supporting actor award, unless I really think that there's hope for all of them — "The Office" and Jenna in particular — to win. The half a clue the voters caught while choosing supporting actors and actresses lessens the shock of "Friday Night Lights" and "Lost" (and others) being shut out of the major categories, but maybe not enough to get me to watch. Every time "Boston Legal" or "Two and a Half Men" comes up, the annoyance twists inside me. And I even like William Shatner and James Spader.

For some more looks at the problems of Emmy voting, check out this Entertainment Weekly column by Mark Harris. For more Emmy reaction, visit the Gold Derby.
For a complete list of Emmy nominations, go here.
And stay tuned for my list of who I would have nominated in the major Emmy categories.

almost time

I have been reading "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince" in order to prepare for "HP and the Deathly Hallows," which you might have heard is coming out July 21. Whenever I read a Harry Potter book, I develop a compulsion to read-read-read until the book is finished. This compulsion ultimately results in gloomy withdrawl and that vicious sorrow of having to reenter this (real) world. (Note to self: Obsession can be a painful, dangerous thing.) I hope to force myself to take things more slowly during "Deathly Hallows," no matter how badly I want to know what will happen next, and how everything ultimately turns out.

I do hope that the following characters in particular do not die:
• Harry
• Hermione
• Anyone named Weasley

Of course, the only character on whom I wish death is Voldemort. I would like to see Draco do something surprising. I believe Snape is ultimately NOT a villain. I expect Peter Pettigrew to repay Harry for sparing his life in "Prisoner of Azkaban." I also expect to get another glimpse or more of Harry's parents and perhaps Sirius, in some form or other. In any case, I'm glad it's about time to read whatever it is that J.K. Rowling has written.

where are they now? right here, apparently

I was just reading over some best-seller lists and came across something that suprised me: No. 1 on the Top Music Video Sales list is “Mindcrime at the Moore” by Queensryche.

1. People still actively like Queensryche? Enough to know when a video is released? Enough to buy it?
2. Queensryche still exists?

My point here is not to knock the band. I once owned a Queensryche album, and might still have it in a box somewhere under my bed. The issue isn't whether Queensryche deserves to have the No. 1 music DVD on sale right now. The issue is: Where on Earth did this popularity come from? It looks like the band released a greatest hits album in June, and the aforementioned DVD (Amazon.com Sales Rank: No. 1,257 in DVD as of this writing) and a related CD on July 3. Are we in for a Queensryche resurgence? Should I expect to hear "Silent Lucidity" on the radio during my drive home?

I guess being on a VH1 Celebreality show isn't the only way for has-beens (or perhaps seemingly has-beens) to sell some records.

superheroes at your service

The season premiere of SciFi's "Who Wants to be a Superhero?" is Thursday, July 26, at 9 p.m. My question is: What superheroic power would you like to have?

The powers of the show's real-life contestants are detailed on the website. The Defuser's "specialty is non-lethal weaponry. His powers include enhanced speed, strength, agility, reflexes, hearing and eyesight. He also has night vision to a range of 60 feet." Basura "communicates with and is aided by insects of all kinds; trains small animals to assist her; can intuit by touch how any object was created; turns trash into treasure and reshapes rubbish into robots." Hygena, meanwhile, "now fights crime and grime with weapons created from cleaning tools. Her feather duster shoots ionized radiation upwards of 60 feet, immobilizing criminals (and leaving them with a pleasant odor and a sparkling shine). Her clean bombs cause foes to fall unconscious for 30 minutes. She is protected by a magic necklace."

I've often wished I could transport from one place to another, like the folks in "Star Trek." I'd like to be able to transport myself and other people and objects. But without having to be able to see my destination (like Nightcrawler in "X-Men") in order to avoid transporting into, say, the interior of a wall. Maybe I could look at a map, or a photo, and once the location has downloaded into my brain it's there for the rest of my life. Hawaii, here I come! And no more driving to work on snow-covered roads! I wouldn't even have to wear a cape. Unless I want to. Now I just have to think of a name.

Another summer of sequels: End of the world, or not?

Looking for a movie to watch this summer? A sequel will be hard to avoid.

Being a sequel isn't such a bad thing.

With another summer full of sequels, remakes and updates of familiar characters, you're likely to run into a few "Why can't they do something ORIGINAL?" laments. And while many sequels, remakes and updates are better left unrealized, some are unfairly maligned by being lumped in with "Garfield: A Tail of Two Kitties" (which I haven't seen, so I'm just guessing here). Just because some of the characters and/or the basic storyline are familiar doesn't mean a movie can't be inventive, creative and as good (or better than) the original.

I haven't yet seen a film this summer that I flat-out didn't like. Actually, the only movie I saw in the theater this year that I didn't like was "Premonition." I saw few films from January through April. Since May, I've seen lots, mostly sequels or updates — "Spider-Man 3," "Pirates of the Caribbean," "Ocean's 13," "28 Weeks Later," "Nancy Drew," "Fantastic Four," "Transformers" and my favorite so far, "Live Free or Die Hard." I plan to add "Harry Potter" this weekend.

Of those, the only one that didn't quite meet my expectations was "Spider-Man." Not that it was bad. "28 Weeks Later," "Fantastic Four" and "Transformers" were what I expected (good but not spectacular), as was "Ocean's 13" (better than good with its playful spirit and style). I would preferred a stronger "Pirates" to cap off the series, but I enjoyed "At World's End" and wouldn't call it a disappointment. "Nancy Drew," meanwhile, was a pleasant surprise, and "Die Hard" really surprised me, too. The funny parts were funny (actually worth laughing at) and the action choreography and camera work was creative and exciting (notable in a time when moviegoers approach the film already having seen A LOT of action sequences).

Most of these movies didn't shatter expectations, but then again, neither do most "original" films. If the script, the actors and the execution are good, and the overall product is worth a thumbs up, and the new film offers something notable of its own, then why fault it for being an extension of a brand we already know?

(I just realized that the only summer movie I've seen that wasn't a sequel or an update of a well-known character is "1408." Which is based on a Stephen King story. The movie I'm most excited about seeing that hasn't come out yet is "The Bourne Ultimatum," No. 3 in the series.)

so much to read

"Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows" comes out July 21. The autumn issue of Prerogative comes out July 27. That gives you plenty of time to race through "Deathly Hallows," and you'll probably need something to help curb your Harry Potter withdrawl. I'm planning to make myself read the book more slowly, over the course of a week and a half perhaps, rather than reading it compulsively for hours on end. I hope reaching the end will hurt less that way.

I also plan to reread Stephen King's article about coming to the end of a book series (read the online copy here). I think it will help to know I'm not alone in the sort of separation anxiety only books can give you.

I have returned to bring to you a mystery

And what prods me to finally post something new? Well, mostly the Internet rumblings about this new secret J.J. Abrams movie. Also, we're almost finished with the work on the autumn issue of Prerogative, which comes out July 27, and so I have some more time to do things like this.

People who saw "Transformers" also saw a snippet of an untitled movie to be released in January 2008. Here is the official trailer.

A movement is growing online of people who are trying to learn more about the film. Not even the official name is known for sure (the codename at least appears to be "Cloverfield"). Here's what IMDb has about the movie. And here's a site that's definitely related.

A possibly related website is one for Slusho, which people say was on a shirt that one of the characters is wearing in the movie trailer (I haven't rewatched the trailer yet to check it out myself). A couple other sites were/are considered to be linked to the film, but producer J.J. Abrams disagrees. Note that he also says we haven't found most of the film-related websites yet.

•••
Speaking of (the fabulous) J.J. Abrams, for those of you who aren't as familiar with that name: He has worked as a writer, producer and/or director for "Lost," "Alias" and "Felicity," among other projects. He directed "Mission: Impossible III" and is set to direct the next "Star Trek" film. I think he's also supposed to work on the movie versions of Stephen King's "Dark Tower" series. And he's good friends with (the fabulous) Greg Grunberg, who has been in lots of J.J. Abrams projects, though some of you might know him better from "Heroes." (A scan of his acting credits on IMDb also unearths such early-career gems as "Frankenstein: The College Years" and an episode of "Baywatch.")

Greg Grunberg also plays in a band with Hugh Laurie ("House"), James Denton ("Desperate Housewives") and some other people. They raise money for charities. I recently watched a few episodes of "Jeeves and Wooster," an older British show, and Hugh Laurie was pretty impressive in his sing-and-play-the-piano scenes.