Though Demi Lovato has never been one to shy away from hair dye, her newest ombre style may just be her coolest yet. The starlet must have been channeling a "Neon Lights" vibe when she dyed her hair in a purple to silver ombre, which she debuted on Twitter:
Lavender/silver ombre..... I know I said I was gonna give my hair a break but.. I #REALLYDONTCAREpic.twitter.com/epKIBnMzsS
— Demi Lovato (@ddlovato) June 4, 2014
Lovato's hair may be getting a little worn out, but she seemed to be invigorated by her newest hairstyle. The singer also posted a late-night no-makeup selfie proving that we, in fact, can love her even more.
No makeup.. 4am... pic.twitter.com/cyZfqnI8gt
— Demi Lovato (@ddlovato) June 4, 2014
If you're wondering how the ombre looks when styled, Lovato posted one more selfie so that her fans could get the full effect.
It remains to be seen whether the lavender/silver ombre is Lovato's best hairstyle of 2014, but it's easily one of our favorites so far. Still, these photos prove two things are true: Lovato can pull off any hairstyle she wants, and she is one of the best role model for ladies of all ages. Seriously, let's all post no-makeup selfies.
Also, we need to step up our hair game.
With the final season of True Blood hitting television screens this summer, our heroine Sookie (Anna Paquin) will be tasked with fighting a new kind of evil: zombie-like vampires. Though we may be sad to see True Blood finally bite the dust, there have been six seasons worth of fantastic villains. We’re taking the time to appreciate some of them before the true death of HBO’s vamp show.
Maryann Forrester (Michelle Forbes)
Maryann’s crimes include hosting huge orgies, creating chaos, forcing humans to do her bidding, and attempting to sacrifice a magical creature. She may not be the most evil of True Blood’s villains — she also, arguably, did have some people’s interests at heart — but let’s not forget the whole sacrifice/mind control thing.
Antonia Gavilán (Paola Turbay/Fiona Shaw)
As far as the reasoning behind villainous intentions, Antonia’s may be the easiest to understand. Though she is overcome with a need for vengeance and possesses Marnie Stonebrook’s (Fiona Shaw) body in an attempt to seek revenge, can you blame her? She was tortured by vampires; given the laundry list of evil vampires we’ve seen on True Blood it’s almost understandable.
Lorena Krasiki (Mariana Klaveno)
For most of her time on True Blood, Lorena is more of a jealous ex-girlfriend than an actual villain. That’s not to say that ex-girlfriends can’t be evil, because Lorena certainly is. However, she’s not that much worse than some other vampires on True Blood, though she does help give the species a bad name.
Macklyn Warlow (Rob Kazinsky)
Warlow — or Ben, as we first knew him — was the main antagonist of the most recent season, but he had been teased for most of the show’s lifespan. Warlow was the vampire that murdered Sookie’s parents. He also tried to force Sookie to marry him, which was as creepy as it was evil. However, as far as nefarious villains, he spent most of the season (literally) tied up which wasn’t very good for his bad guy reputation.
Rene Lenier/Drew Marshall (Michael Raymond-James)
Though Rene — or should we call him Drew — was more species-ist than outright evil, his psychopathic tendencies really don’t help his case. As the first season’s big bad, the vampire and vampire-sympathist murderer made for a great mystery and thrilling season. Plus, anyone who can kill a nice old women like Adele Stackhouse must be at least 89 percent evil.
Steve and Sarah Newlin (Michael McMillian & Anna Camp)
As religious fanatics, Steve and Sarah Newlin commit some cruel atrocities against vampires in the name of their god. However, even though they may have thought what they were doing was right, it wasn’t. Their delusion makes them pretty darn evil, especially Sarah’s testing facility in the sixth season.
Franklin Mott (James Frain)
Though Franklin wasn’t around for a long time, he managed betray some of our beloved characters Tara and Jessica. To make matters worse for himself, he has no redeeming qualities and many viewers were glad to see him die.
Russell Edgington (Denis O’Hare)
By far the most evil vampire on True Blood, Russell has little to no regard for human life, he is a crazed lunatic who just wants to watch the world burn, and his proper Southern accent makes him all the more menacing. Plus, he comes back from being buried under massive amounts of concrete. He’s the biggest bad True Blood has seen yet.
ABC Television Network
It can’t be denied that there is a lack of diversity in American sitcoms. Many revolve around white — or mostly white — characters and, currently, none focus on an Asian-Americans. In fact, the last comedy to follow a wholly Asian-American family was Margaret Cho’s All-American Girl, which ran for one season in 1994. However, ABC’s Fresh Off the Boat will premiere on the network this fall and it seems to have a lot of potential.
First off, have you seen the trailer for Fresh Off the Boat? Although watching the trailers and promos for all the new network shows that will debut this fall may make many people quite jaded, Fresh Off the Boat stood out from the rest because it was actually hilarious. Secondly, the show seems to be a very genuine look into the life of an Asian-American family in the ‘90s. It looks this way because the show is based on the memoir of the same name by Eddie Huang. So, the story of Fresh Off the Boat is rooted in reality, managing to be entertaining and genuine at the same time.
If you’re doubtful of how American sitcoms can manage authenticity, take a look at the trailer for ABC’s other upcoming comedy, Christela. While it’s heartening to see ABC trying to diversify the families featured on the network’s comedies, there is a stark contrast between Christela and Fresh Off the Boat. While Christela seems to draw all its humor from tired stereotypes, Fresh Off the Boat is more about combating stereotypes by giving viewers a more honest look into the featured family.
It may be important for networks to diversify, especially within their sitcom families, but it’s also important to create quality television, which is entirely possible to do with non-white characters without relying on exhausted jokes based in horrible stereotypes. Although it may be a bit premature to say so, Fresh Off the Boat seems to be a promising example of how networks can diversify and make fantastic shows.
David Livingston/Getty Images
There is a misconception about young adult books that says they can only appeal to "young adults" — that is, teenagers. However, a recent article in Cosmopolitan from YA author, John Green (the man behind The Fault in Our Stars) argues that it’s impossible to grow too old for novels that fall into the young adult categorization.
Green contends that the themes of these YA books — love, loss, life, identity, coming to grips with adulthood — can be relatable to everyone, no matter what age, who have had similar experiences. While that is all very true, it also extends to any other type of media targeted toward teens, including television and movies.
For those of us that read young adult novels, watch much (or all) of The CW’s programming, as well as go to the midnight premiere showings of The Hunger Games and Divergent films, know that there is something about all of these stories with which we can identify. It’s because, no matter how old we get, we still remember our first love, our first heartbreak, and our first glimpse of death and the mortality of those around us.
Sure, we’ll grant you that TV shows and movies directed at teens are more likely to fall prey to clichés and stereotypes or jump on the supernatural bandwagon (though all of those things can be found within young adult literature as well) due to a lack of depth or development. But television shows like Reign, The 100, and Teen Wolf as well as movies like The Hunger Games: Catching Fire and The Fault in our Stars are raising the bar for all other teen series and films.
What it comes down to with the YA/teen label is a stigma of immaturity. The misconception about those who read young adult novels and watch teen-geared TV or movies is that they’re suffering from Peter Pan syndrome and don’t want to grow up. However, those novels, TV shows, and movies often deal with more serious issues in a much more impactful way than “adult” programming.
So, we need to shirk the stigma and remember that just because something is geared toward teens, that doesn’t mean it is of a lower quality. (We’re sure Green would agree with us on this.)
Fox’s newest reality dating show, I Wanna Marry Harry, premiered last night after the first part of the American Idol season finale. The premise is fairly simple: one British prince hoping to find love and 12 American ladies hoping he’s her knight in shining armor. But there’s a twist (isn’t there always?): he’s not really a prince.
That’s right. Although the title of the show is I Wanna Marry Harry — as in Harry, the Prince of Wales, younger brother to Prince William, that Harry— isn’t actually Prince Harry, he’s a lookalike. The bachelor on I Wanna Marry Harry is actually named Matt Hicks. He rides a bike because he can’t afford a car and his job that entails cleaning up oils spills. (He is actually British, though, so he has that in common with Prince Harry, in addition to his looks.)
As far as eligible bachelors go, the ladies on this dating show could do worse. And, to be fair, no one actually tells the girls they’ll be vying for the affection of Prince Harry. However, the show does go to great lengths to deceive the girls, including a Prince Harry Boot Camp in which Matt must learn everything about the Prince of Wales, royal etiquette, and how to play polo among other princely pastimes.
The girls are exactly what you’d expect from any reality dating show: they’re beautiful, boisterous, and have loads of personality. Some are quirky, some are flirty, some will do anything to win, and others are honestly hoping to find true love.
I Wanna Marry Harry looks, at first glance, like a cruel joke on these nice — as far as we know — girls. And it absolutely would be, if not for the bachelor. The entire show hinges on Matt (not really Prince Harry), who seems to genuinely be in this for the right reasons. During the opening sequences, he tells of his dating history in which he’s seen many girls lose interest in him when they find out he isn’t the Prince of Wales.
Perhaps this backward way of allowing ladies to think what they like of him and then revealing his true identity will be the only way he’ll be able to find love. Or maybe it will horribly backfire.
As someone who doesn’t usually watch reality dating shows — but did enjoy ABC’s amazingly campy, but fake murder-mystery show Whodunnit? — there’s something especially enjoyable when (at least some of) the contestants are in on the hoax. It adds another layer of intrigue to what has become a rather tired set up for reality dating series such as this.
I’ll certainly be sticking with I Wanna Marry Harry if only because I need answers to some burning questions: will Matt be able to fool the ladies all season? What lengths will the show go to in order to keep Matt’s secret? Will the girls be more cutthroat if they think a prince is the prize? Will he find someone to love, who loves him for who he truly is?
Call me a hopeless romantic, but I’m pulling for Matt.
Universal Pictures via Everett Collection
Unlike many of the other reboots, remakes, and sequels that will be hitting theaters over the next few years (and, let’s be real, the next few decades), Jurassic World has some serious promise. Dinosaurs, Chris Pratt, and a new sci-fi amusement park? Yeah, this is going to be good.
But, first off, let’s go back to why the first film was so great. Jurassic Park deals with a very simple concept, as Jeff Goldblum put it so perfectly in the original film: life finds a way. Jurassic Park is about humans versus nature — the nature of dinosaurs and the nature of evolution. It’s a concept that, though it may be present in science fiction, is often overshadowed by the struggle between humans and technology (which we’ll see in the upcoming Terminator Genesis). However, it’s more interesting to see humans fight against something as uncontrollable as nature and evolution — things that are bigger and older than the human race.
Speaking of things older than humans: dinosaurs. Everyone who will go see Jurassic World can probably remember the first time they saw Jurassic Park. Or, at least, they can remember the wonder of seeing such lifelike dinosaurs on screen. (Yes, now we know the raptors in the film are inaccurate depictions, but they were spot on illustrations of what science believed of the species at the time.) There’s something different — and awesome — about watching a movie with creatures that once existed and don’t anymore, than seeing machines or other technologies that never have (even if they could very soon).
However, the most exciting aspect of Jurassic World is the actual theme park, which can be seen in concept art released a couple months ago. In Jurassic Park, the park hadn’t opened yet before the dinosaurs broke free and wreaked havoc. Then, in the follow up films the island on which the park was set had already been overridden by dinosaurs. If Jurassic World takes place in a fully-operational amusement park that’s open for business, the film could tap into a completely unexplored aspect of the original story: what would happen if Jurassic Park had been open when the dinosaurs got loose?
Though writer and director Colin Trevorrow has kept plot details under wraps, we do know the movie will pick up in real time — 20 years after the events of original film — and they’ll be returning to the island. Plus, they’re throwing in aquatic dinosaurs so, if nothing else, we’ll get to see how the heroes of the movie deal with prehistoric killing machines on land, in the air, and in the water. Since the new film seems to be upping the ante on a classic and cool concept, we have high hopes it’ll be awesome.
Another one bites the dust. Last week, Fox canceled one of its few sci-fi shows, Almost Human, reaffirming the network’s reputation as a bad home for science fiction programming. The network may have given rise to the sci-fi kingpin The X Files, as well as the well-liked Dark Angel, but they haven’t been able to find another hit since, which may be the result of too many early cancellations. Most notorious of the killed-too-soon sci-fi series are Joss Whedon’s Firefly and Dollhouse. But Whedon wasn’t the only victim: Terra Nova, Tru Calling, and now the J.J. Abrams produced detective series were all canceled before their time. So where is Fox going wrong?
It’s safe to say that Fox's first misstep took place in regards to Firefly. The show became such a cult hit that Whedon revived it for a concluding film, Serenity, and was asked if he might resuscitate the long-finished series after the Veronica Mars Kickstarter raised enough money to fund a film. Firefly was canceled after a mere 13 episodes when it wasn’t receiving the kind of viewership Fox expected. Given the amount of praise the series has gained in the 15 years since cancelation, it’s easy to see that Fox missed out on a diamond in the rough.
The problem with Fox is that the network never fully commits to its sci-fi shows and expects too much. If Fox wants to have a successful science fiction series on its network, they should give those shows creative freedom. For instance, Fox shouldn’t air episodes out of order (like it did with Almost Human) or try to force a show in a direction they think might be more successful (like it did with Firefly).
At this point, Fox’s bad reputation with sci-fi series has become a self-fulfilling prophecy. The more that Fox mistreats its science fiction series, the more sci-fi fans decide not to even bother investing in those shows. Science fiction is a niche genre that won’t appeal to as wide a range of viewers as reality competition shows, but that doesn’t mean the audience isn’t there. However, fans aren’t going to invest in a show that could very likely be canceled after 13 episodes.
Either Fox needs to decide it really wants to draw in science fiction fans, which might mean letting a show run a little longer than a single 13-episode season to allow viewers a chance to actually get invested; or, Fox should just give up. They’ve seemed to hit gold with its paranormal drama, Sleepy Hollow, so maybe Fox should stick with projects of that ilk and leave the sci-fi series to networks that will give them a real chance.
Universal Pictures via Everett Collection
Movie fans don’t always agree with the critics, it’s just a fact of life. However, Rotten Tomatoes has become the place to find out both the audience and critic ratings of any film so viewers can compare and make an informed decision. While critics and fans agree on a lot of films, there are many comedies that reviewers panned even though they were loved by the audience. We’ve put together a list of the 10 most surprisingly rotten comedies because, at least on these occasions, the critics are totally wrong!
Wet Hot American SummerCritics Score: 31%Audience Score: 82%The cult hit that is Wet Hot American Summer remains popular among fans to this day, possibly because its cast included some major comedians like Amy Poehler, Paul Rudd, Michael Ian Black, and Bradley Cooper.
Ace Ventura: Pet DetectiveCritics Score: 45%Audience Score: 57%Though Jim Carrey’s wacky humor isn’t appreciated by everyone, to some, Ace Ventura is one of the funniest movies they’ve ever seen. If nothing else, it’s certainly unique.
Tommy BoyCritics Score: 44%Audience Score: 91%The comedy starring two Saturday Night Live favorites, Chris Farley and David Spade, is a classic! It’s surprising that Tommy Boy received such a low score, and if you narrow the Rotten Tomatoes score from all critics to just the top critics, the score goes down to 18%.
Billy MadisonCritics Score: 46%Audience Score: 80%It may be debatable which of Adam Sandler’s films is his best, but many fans are sure to name Billy Madison. Even if it’s not the best Sandler comedy, it’s easily top five.
Super TroopersCritics Score: 35%Audience Score: 90%Perhaps its silly humor didn’t appeal to the critics, but it did make Super Troopers a hit among movie viewers.
Bring It OnCritics Score: 64%Audience Score: 66%Rotten Tomatoes failed us all around on this one. Bring it On is one of the funniest movies of the past two decades. “We’re awesome, we’re hot, we’re everything you’re not.” You tell ‘em, girls.
Hot RodCritics Score: 40%Audience Score: 64%As Andy Samberg’s first lead role, Hot Rod was the movie that launched his career — with the help of Saturday Night Live, of course. Cool beans!
National Lampoon’s Van WilderCritics Score: 18%Audience Score: 74%Sure, Van Wilder may be a gross-out comedy, but it also launched Ryan Reynolds’ career. And if you can sit through it without laughing, you are a stronger person than I.
The Hot ChickCritics Score: 21%Audience Score: 60%Rob Schneider adopting the airs and mannerisms of a teenaged girl, plus Rachel McAdams portraying a gross small-time crook? C’mon, it’s one of the best body-switching comedies out there.
Grandma’s BoyCritics Score: 18%Audience Score: 86%Another silly-and-gross comedy that critics weren’t amused by is Grandma’s Boy. However, its raunchy humor was such a hit among fans that the movie’s ratings have the biggest disparity of all the comedies on this list.
With the release of The Amazing Spider-Man 2 there has been some buzz about what will happen to Peter Parker once Andrew Garfield’s three-film contract is up with Sony. Will the studio re-cast Peter? Will Peter hand the reigns off to another Spider-Man that has been featured in the comics? And, if so, will that Spider-Man be Miles Morales?
Miles Morales donned the Spidey getup in Marvel’s Ultimate Comics: Spider-Man series that ran from 2011 to 2013; he also happened to be the first half-black, half-Hispanic Spider-Man. It would make complete sense for Miles to become a part of Sony’s Spider-Man films since the character was partially inspired by the casting of The Amazing Spider-Man. When the studio was originally casting for the film, there was a big push from fans to cast Community’s Donald Glover as Peter Parker — and, as a result, a lot of backlash from fans who thought Peter Parker could never be anything other than white. But these events, as well as the election of Barack Obama, led comic book writer Brian Michael Bendis and Marvel editor-in-chief Axel Alonso to the question: “Why does Spider-Man have to be white?” Then they created Miles Morales.
In a recent interview with Comic Book Resources, the current Spider-Man star said he’s thought a lot about the inclusion of Miles. “I don’t have an answer,” Garfield said of whether the transition would happen. “But I think it’s actually a really important move. I think it’s a really beautiful and important move.”
However, producers of The Amazing Spider-Man 2, Avi Arad and Matt Tolmach told Indiewire that they’re not planning on straying away from Peter Parker’s Spider-Man. Of course, they also said that whoever picks up the reigns after they leave the series (whenever that may be) could have a different vision for the franchise. Plus, Arad and Tolmach argued that they wouldn’t try to transition Spider-Man from Peter to Miles because Marvel failed a similar attempt in Spider-Man 3. However, if Marvel Studios pulls off a Captain America transition from Steve Rogers to Bucky Barnes, their argument would be completely moot.
Since Sony is planning on building a whole shared universe around The Amazing-Spider Man, with Sinister Six and Venom movies already announced, it would seem ridiculous to limit the franchise to Peter Parker as the only featured webslinger. A new on-screen version of Spider-Man, especially a non-white take on the beloved character, could make the character appeal to an even wider audience.
Though it may have taken a long time for comic book heroes to diversify, it has become a reality. Now, those of us who appreciate diverse representation in the comics would like to see a similar push to diversify the cinematic universes — meaning the heroes as well as the villains.
YouTube/FOX/Warner Bros. Pictures via Everett Collection
Ever since Marvel kicked off the shared universe trend two years ago, movie studios have been rushing to create their own film franchises based on superheroes. Sony has Spider-Man, Fox has the X-Men, and Warner Bros. jumped on the bandwagon with last year’s Man of Steel. Now, not only are they planning a sequel (Batman vs. Superman, which released its first images yesterday) but a Justice League movie as well. However, DC already has success on TV with The CW’s Arrow, which is getting a spinoff: The Flash. Plus Fox is debuting Gotham in the fall and NBC will be launching Constantine. With all these DC superheroes in film and TV, should they try to create a cohesive shared universe?
Marvel Studios has been testing the waters of the shared universe with their cinematic universe along with Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. and their yet-to-be released Netflix shows. Although it’s working for the Disney-affiliated company, it might not be so easy for DC. The first season of Arrow was already over — and season two production had already begun — when Man of Steel hit theaters. There has, thus far, been no mention in Arrow of Superman, Metropolis, or the events that took place in Man of Steel. To weave those separate stories together in the third season of Arrow wouldn’t make sense, and would weigh down what has been a fun and entertaining superhero series.
What about Gotham or Constantine? Could they fit within the DC Cinematic Universe? Although Gotham will feature Bruce Wayne, it will be as a child, which will be a far cry from “Batfleck” in the upcoming Man of Steel sequel. Again, weaving these television shows into the timeline of DC’s film franchise would be incredibly difficult and probably detract from what these movies and TV shows could accomplish on their own.
So what about a shared DC television universe? The timelines might — and I’m seriously stressing that “might” — be able to align a bit easier, but there’s the problem of the networks. With Constantine on NBC, Gotham on Fox, and Arrow and The Flash on The CW, it would be near impossible to have crossovers between the four series.
Ultimately, creating a cohesive shared universe takes a lot of work. Remember, Marvel started constructing the MCU even before Iron Man premiered in 2008. Warner Bros. and DC, along with Fox and NBC on the TV front, are trying to capitalize on superheroes while they’re the big thing in pop culture; they don’t have time to spend four or five years building a universe.
For that reason, it would be best avoid a shared universe and so that each network and studio could focus on their own projects and make them the best they can be. Similar to how Marvel Studios has the Avengers, Fox has the X-Men, and Sony has Spider-Man. It’s good for fans because we’re getting more superhero movies and TV shows than we know what to do with.