Superficial Slobber

Lindsey Lohan
© N/A

What the hell were they thinking?

By: Jarrod Sarafin
Date: Saturday, March 17, 2007

This week, we have rappers being barred from filming more horrible movies in New York. Snoop Doggy makes the news for being himself. Lohan is still crazy, Sinbad is indeed alive and Jolie is still looking to adopt a soccer team of babies from each 3^rd world country. In other words, Maniacs, all is where it should be in the world of celebrity headlines.

The only shocking this week is while Paris Hilton is still a ditz; she stayed out of the news this week (much to the AP’s surprise I bet). Of course, we have her “friend” Lohan making the watercooler talk so that’s at least something.

New York Police tell Busta Rhymes he can’t film in their town.

The NYPD blocked Busta Rhymes from beginning work on his latest crime thriller Order of Redemption (also co-starring Tom Berenger) set in New York. The city came back to the director with bureaucratic reasoning and financial reasons but inside sources say it was because Rhymes has never co-operated with a NYPD murder investigation of his former bodyguard, Israel Ramirez. Ramirez was killed outside a Brooklyn warehouse in February 2006 and Busta has never come in and answered questions relating to the incident to the police’s satisfaction.

Yet here he is setting to act in a Crime Thriller?!

Define Irony.

It could be NYPD is doing everyone a service by blocking him from acting so we don’t get another Halloween Resurrection. Good job, New York’s finest!

Snoop Dogg arrested in Sweden.

Snoop Dogg

Swedish authorities collared the Dogg under suspicion of being under narcotics.

Now, get this Maniacs.

The tour he’s working on? It’s called “Pass the Puff Tour”.

Right……Narcotics being involved here?!? No way! Pulling over Snoop Dogg for suspicion of being under the influence is just as silly as pulling over Willie Nelson and being shocked at finding the green bud.

Lindsey Lohan’s father released from New York Prison

The estranged father of the actress (I use that term as loosely as Lindsey herself) was released this last Tuesday from a prison in Buffalo. He was originally sentenced to 4 years back in June of 2005 for being “general bad influence” ranging from drunken driving to assault. The judge sent his butt to jail for being that bad influence.

At the same time that daddy was being released from Prison, daughter Lindsey got into a confrontation with paparazzi photographers outside a hotel early the same morning (around 3 am). There are conflicting reports on if Lindsey was the aggressor or the paparazzi were the ones initiating the fracas. All that can be said is Lindsey used her car as a means of whopping a photographer and the cops were called in to investigate things.

No word yet if Lindsey Lohan is going to be following in Daddy’s footsteps for being an even worse influences.

Leo DiCaprio’s bodyguards arrested.

Dicaprio’s bodyguards and paparazzi decided to have a free for all fight near the Western Wall (one of Jerusalem’s holiest sites). The actor was touring the site with his Israel born girlfriend model Bar Refaeli when the fisticuffs began between the groups.

Seriously, this is nothing new.

Nothing says “Peace and Love” between different groups more then holy sites in Jerusalem. Am I right?

Viacom is suing Youtube/Google for 1 billion dollars!

More than a month ago, Viacom told Youtube (and parent owner Google) to stop massively infringing on their property rights. They told the very popular web site to remove all copy right infringements on their Comedy Central and Nickelodeon properties from their website.

Youtube nor Google didn’t proceed with taking off the various clips of their programming.

Now, Viacom is suing the hell out of them in the range of 1 Billion dollars.

The lawsuit also seeks an injunction barring Google and YouTube from any further copyright violations, claiming that almost 160,000 clips have already been illegally posted on YouTube, where they've been viewed more than 1.5 billion times.

According to a 27-page complaint filed in a Manhattan federal court, YouTube failed to take "reasonable precautions" to block the rampant posting of copyrighted material and instead deliberately amassed clips from popular series such as The Daily Show and SpongeBob SquarePants to draw traffic to the site.

Here’s my question…Is this a very intelligent move on Viacom’s part? Youtube is helping advertise their shows. We all know how much Google hits helps drive up a website’s traffic. This sounds like an idiotic move to me.

Notorious B.I.G may be dead for a decade but he still banks!

Notorious B.I.G has had two posthumous releases reach the number one spot on the charts since his death. Make that three! The deceased famous rapper hailed as Big Poppa had his latest Greatest 10 Year Anniversary Edition. Christopher Wallace (aka BIG) was gunned down in March 1997. His greatest hits compilation hit the charts reaching for the heavens selling 99,000 copies by week’s end.

The man is wearing serious bling bling in places where no rapper has gone before.

The Rosie O’Donnell & Donald Trump Feud continues…

Rosie and Donald

As I covered in last week’s column, Rosie admitted on a taping of the View last week that she’s taking medication and frequently hangs upside down like a bat for 15-30 minutes a day. After admitting this, the eccentric but honest real estate mogul Trump wasted no time in taking pot shots at her. Hah.

Donald Trump: “All she has to do is look in the mirror and she's going to suffer from depression," the Donald told Extra.

As for her inversion therapy, the non-medically certified Trump said, "I don't think it works and I can think of no sight that I'd rather less see than Rosie hanging by her feet."

Of course, Rosie immediately responded with as much class as their norm.

Rosie O’Donnell: “the dump truck is at it again...hurtful 2 know he doesn't find me attractive as it has been my goal for so long to give a bald billionaire a boner."

I’d say for these two to hurry up…make out and shut up. I won’t say it because that scenario is not something I’m desiring to see anytime soon.

The British Police would like Heather Mills to stop calling them.

It seems as if Heather Mills (former model involved in a bitter lawsuit with ex hubby Paul McCartney) has been calling the cops a little too often lately over what she describes as protection from the “Huge Powers”! They’re getting sick of it.

“There is a huge agenda behind trying to destroy me and put me down," she told the BBC Thursday. "There are huge powers that create these things for reasons of their own."

Police have said publicly that they may begin taking her calls less “serious” if she keeps calling them over trivial matters.

You think?!

Angelina Jolie and Pitt adopt another baby.

A few years ago, they jokingly said they were putting together a soccer team. Perhaps, it wasn’t a joke. Jolie has been in Vietnam the past week to pick up their fast tracked adopted son Pax Thien Jolie-Pitt. They now have a 5 year old Cambodian born child, a 2 year old Ethiopian child, a 10 month biologically born child and the latest, a 3 year old Vietnam child.

Names:

Cambodian son: Maddox

Ethiopian: Zahara

Vietnam: Pax Thien

Biological: Shiloh

No word yet on which locations they’re planning on getting the rest of the soccer team from.

Wikipedia revives Sinbad after prank

Thursday afternoon, some prankster updated the comedian’s Wiki page saying he died of a heart attack. The news quickly trickled through some wires and had people making phone calls. Some other Sinbad related sites around our web was also updated saying he passed and I’m sure that prankster was laughing it up seeing his joke get passed around correlating sites. As I said, it was a joke (albeit not very humorous) and the comedian we know as Sinbad is still alive and feeling well according to his sister.

Wikipedia has since locked the comedian’s page for the foreseeable future to stop any future pranks in similar nature.

That’s going to do it for this week’s Superficial Slobber! Talk to you later Maniacs!

More Content By Jarrod Sarafin

Columbia and Marvel Considering GHOST RIDER 2?
(Thursday, September 4, 2008)
Guillermo del Toro Locked In For Next Decade
(Thursday, September 4, 2008)
HEAVY METAL is Alive Again for Fincher
(Thursday, September 4, 2008)
Paramount Rolling Out New TRANSFORMERS 2 Featurettes
(Thursday, September 4, 2008)
Aaron Eckhart Confirms Two-Face's Fate
(Wednesday, September 3, 2008)
Bruckheimer Overseeing Warfare in Pressfield's KILLING
(Wednesday, September 3, 2008)
Jeff Nathanson Penning Spielberg's 39 CLUES
(Wednesday, September 3, 2008)
Sheldon Lettich Developing HERCULES
(Wednesday, September 3, 2008)
Stephen Sommers Swinging Forward With TARZAN
(Wednesday, September 3, 2008)
Tim Roth Leading Sky One's Fantasy SKELLIG
(Wednesday, September 3, 2008)

Buy These Related Products

Comments/Responses

michaelxaviermaelstrom • Mar 17, 2007, 03:58am •

re: "Here’s my question…Is this a very intelligent move on Viacom’s part? Youtube is helping advertise their shows. We all know how much Google hits helps drive up a website’s traffic. This sounds like an idiotic move to me."

It would definitely be an idiotic move if it was for the purpose Viacom stated it was for.

but I don't much believe anything these megacorporations have to say anymore.

AISI the *real* purpose isn't to remove clips of "copyrighted content" (that in actual fact only serve to provide FREE ADVERTISING and create watercooler-buzz around their FULL show, ostensibly causing people to tune into/tape/tivo the next day's Daily Show/Colbert Report or whatever else was 5 minute buzz clipped on Youtube that day - Ed)

Well, although it's rare, I agree fully with Ed here. Everytime I watch a clip of say South Park or The Daily Show on YouTube, or a Star Wars based spoof or clip, it puts the show in the front of my mind and I then make a mental note to catch the next episode of the show. or in the case of Star Wars spoofs, it might even cause me to put in the Empire DVD sometime later that week, just for that ol buzz.

As you say DJ, no one with a functioning brain cell left is going to kick Youtube's FREE ADVERTISING for their show, in the testicles with lawsuits demanding they shut them down.

Not for "copyright protection" reasons anyway.

"Copyright protection" itself a bullshit argument.

The point of copyright ISN'T copyright anyway, the megacorporations could care less about "intellectual rights".

The point of copyright (in the west) is MONEY. it's to give the holder the money that's generated from the product that's copyrighted.

imo this isn't REALLY about Viacom wanting to protect copyright.

But there's another reason that megacorporations can be counted on to demand something from other megacorporations.

And that's as a pretext for a lawsuit.

id est. GREED.

Viacom's REAL purpose is imo pure greed.

Now that Youtube has a large corporation behind it that they can go after, Viacom are going after them, _for the money_.

(And of course because the legal system will allow them to - Ed)

I would say it's about the 1+ BILLION DOLLARS they can potentially con the legal system into forcing Google to pay them, far more than it's about copyright protection.

Plus I don't see how Google can comply with this is any meaningful way other than token copyright material deletings every now and then. You know, to make it look like they're complying.

Why buy YouTube in the first place if you're going to kill those TV/Movie/et cetera clips anyway?

THEY'RE a great part of the reason YouTube was popular to begin with.

(for me primarily I was drawn to YouTube initially because I could watch 8 minute clips from defunct TV shows, Saturday Morning Toons like D&D, European shows I never got to see, and cool Asian shows that I never knew existed - like Asian LIVE ACTION Spider-man, plus South Park has been effectively banned off cable here so catchin eps on YouTube rocked; et cetera THAT's why I loved YouTube)

If Google kills that "copyrighted material" aspect dead on YouTube, what's to stop YouTube's numerous clone/competition-Video-distributers on the Net from filling the (copyrighted -Ed) TV/movie/show-clip vacuum (and DEMAND -Ed) and replacing YouTube by becoming the New Old YouTube?

I call bullshit here. The litigation is dunderheaded all around.

Viacom is full of duplicitous financially alterior-motivated excrement and Google cannot *really* comply by removing all copyrighted material -without- killing their own golden YouTube goose.

Idiotic.

Unless of course, you're Viacom's lawyers and you care less about "intellectual copyright" per se, and you really care more about making money any way you can get it.

In which case, you do what every other low-life money-grubber does when they want oodles of money for something they don't deserve.

First You find someone rich to sue, and then you come up with a reason to sue them.

ergo, since you can't change peoples desires and demands for those clips from old and new shows, you can always use the legal system to try to get money from another megacorporation like Google instead.

I 'ave SO had it up to my anus with these duplicitious corporate lying sacks of greedy vomitous excrement.

(and SCENE. - Ed)

/End Rant/

:D

- mXm

almostunbiased • Mar 17, 2007, 06:48am •

Lindsey is HOT and Viacom is greedy, but I'd sue them for a Billion too if I thought I could win/ own them.

Did I mention Lindsey is amazingly HOT. Why did she have to end up to be such a nut.

I think Rosie and Donald look alike.

Jakester • Mar 17, 2007, 07:45am •

Lindsay is still a skank. Her dad is a drunk.
Viacom is mega greedy.
Bodyguards don't turn the other cheek.
Jolie and Pitt are both hot.
Sinbad is apparently Jesus.

Jakester • Mar 17, 2007, 07:46am •

Lindsay is still a skank. Her dad is a drunk.
Viacom is mega greedy.
Bodyguards don't turn the other cheek.
Jolie and Pitt are both hot.
Sinbad is apparently Jesus.

Merin • Mar 17, 2007, 10:02am •

A blast from the past -

http://www.mania.com/40268.html?action=add_comment

"I've always had a problem with the entertainment industry using 'lost potential sales as a true bar of how much money is being lost by file-sharing. Lost 'potential' sales? Most people I know of (myself included) who get stuff via Kazaa or whatever would probably never have bought half the stuff they get that they don't end up buying at some point anyway, and the stuff they wouldn't buy they don't keep. The argument has been used many times, but I honestly believe it is true - file-sharing helps the entertainment industry by exposing people to new things they would never have tried otherwise. The argument I always think of and rarely ever see is sharing, person to person. Who doesn't loan recorded tv shows, DVDs, CDs, games, books, etc, to friends, family and co-workers? Isn't everyone who 'borrows' a piece of media, uses that media, and doesn't pay for that media then, in fact, stealing? They are getting the use of the product without paying for it... and isn't THAT what the entertainment industry is, ultimately, calling the foul? Because they aren't targeting people who profit from file-sharing (who are those people?). And they aren't targeting people who make and distribute complete copies of products - like burning CDs and photo-copying books. (Ok, I know they do go after such people - but if you watch the ad campaigns and listen to the entertainment industry, it's the ones who are sharing with no money exchanged who are causing the most damage. What is that all about?)

"'Potential sales' is a forced and misleading argument that I just don't buy. Stealing media, to me, involves taking it from someone [so that] they don't have it anymore, [such as] physically picking up a CD or book from a store and leaving without paying. Making copies to share with someone, with no profit involved to either side, isn't 'stealing'... it may be made illegal at some point...but that needs the use of the newer definition of 'piracy' and not 'stealing.' People are generally honest, really, and will support the artists whom they like. If they get a copy of something and like it, most likely they go out and buy other products from that same artist. I see it happen all the time - it's called 'word of mouth' and it helps sell products for company and doesn't cost an advertising cent! The entertainment industry needs to pull its collective head from its ass and work with this trend and use it to help promote instead of fighting a battle they will never win, a battle which just embitters and turns enemies of their customer base."

And this goes for YouTube as well - why can't they consider it free advertising? I just don't understand suits.

jppintar326 • Mar 17, 2007, 10:19am •

Lindsay's dad may be a jailbird, but it's her mom who is her so called manager. Obviously, she isn't doing a very good job. I have a feeling as long as the checks don't bounce, mommy dearest looks the other way as to what her meal ticket, sorry daughter, is doing. This is only the beginning because Lindsay has a younger sister.

bjjdenver • Mar 17, 2007, 11:42am •

Lohan is Hot?? Really? lets see, she is 20 years old, yet she looks like a 40 year old hair metal groupie left over from the 80's. She suffers from emotional problems, probably brought on by her nutcase parents, she has issues with substance abuse, she has eating disorders, she has very little "fitness" to her body, her skin looks like an old pair of boots. She was ok for 5 minutes when she was cute, underage and overdeveloped, now, the definition of skank. Unfortunately, this is the kind of young Hollywood that way to many kids are emulating.
I really want to say that Angelina is doing a good thing, but something just doesn't sit right with me. I can't put my finger on it, but everytime I hear about her adopting for her Benneton collection, it just kind of puts me off.
Snoop Dogg arrested for drugs, those cops must have been high.
Sinbad...they should have left him dead, or maybe they were just talking about his career.
Rosie and The Donald...does anyone believe this isn't just PR?

karas1 • Mar 17, 2007, 12:42pm •

" really want to say that Angelina is doing a good thing, but something just doesn't sit right with me. I can't put my finger on it, but everytime I hear about her adopting for her Benneton collection, it just kind of puts me off."

It smacks of publicity stunt to me. There are plenty of homeless kids in the USA who need help and a good home. Why is she trolling the 3rd world for children to adopt?

As for the "intelectual property" thing, if you made your living creating art (painting portraits, writing books, recording songs, acting in movies, whatever) and people were distributing it free on the internet and therfore you weren't getting paid royalties for your efforts, you'd be upset too. And if you made your living distributing the art and free internet downloads of the art were cutting into your paycheck, that would also upset you.

If people are watching episodes of Sponge Bob Square Pants on YouTube and therefore not watching them on TV and therefore not generating ratings or viewing the associated commercials that's a problem for Viacom. They are not being paid for providing the program. Why should they have to put up with that?

"in the case of Star Wars spoofs, it might even cause me to put in the Empire DVD sometime later that week, just for that ol buzz."

Since you already own the DVD, wether you watch it or not really doesn't matter to Viacom. They already sold you the product and got their money. Wether you watch it 4 times a day or it's gathering dust under the bed it's all the same to them.

michaelxaviermaelstrom • Mar 17, 2007, 06:45pm •

Hail Karas1,

re: "If people are watching episodes of Sponge Bob Square Pants on YouTube and therefore not watching them on TV and therefore not generating ratings or viewing the associated commercials that's a problem for Viacom. They are not being paid for providing the program. Why should they have to put up with that?"

Because of numerous reasons that wind up here: the financial benefits to the copyright holders of free advertising, FAR OUTWEIGH the losses.

1. The Value of Intellectual real-estate.

it is the Number One sought after real-estate on the planet.

Donald Trump's New York holdings? they have NOTHING on the value of intellectual real-estate.

It is the single most prized real estate on the planet.

That is, the ability to move your product/show into the forefront of _the mind_ of the consumer, is the most valuable real estate there is.

Park Place? Hamptons? not even close, they're poverty row by comparison.

If we examine why we've ever -bought- anything in our lives, we find that 8 times out of 2 it's because the product was swirling around in our minds.

(which as you know just so happens to be the very purpose of Advertising: to get into the forefront of the viewers/consumers mind)

To use your example, when people watch Spongebob Squarepants on You-tube, Viacom don't lose advertising (for ancillary products that would have advertised during it on TV) so much as quite the opposite occurs, two things nominally will occur.

1. The kids will be more inclined to watch Spongebob on TV the next time it is on because..

2. now the YouTube Kid has "spongebob squarepants" on the brain, for that day.

..as a _direct result_ of watching a clip of it on YouTube.

(^which was the purpose of the Spongebob Squarepants show on television to begin with, let's not forget. It's all about product.)

3. Now as a result of YouTube'ing Spongebog clips, when junior is with Mom at the supermarket or department store, his eyes will be more -aware- of any Spongebob Squarepants items - whether it be a small Pez Dispenser at the checkout or a larger more expensive Spongebob toy, if the kids got moxie.

:)

And consequently he will ask Mom or Dad for it.

This is effectively a brand new sale that wouldn't have otherwise occurred all _thanks to YouTube_ having facilitated Spongebob's place in said child's mind for that day.

With The Daily Show, watching a 5 minute highlight clip of last night's show, the buzz on YouTube creates -increased- interest and consequently increased ratings, as more people (again thanks to YouTube) put the next episode of The Daily Show on their "tune-into" schedule.

As you know, that's what "buzz" and "advertising" does, they move shows and their related merchandizing to the forefront of the mind of the consumer.

re: "in the case of Star Wars spoofs, it might even cause me to put in the Empire DVD sometime later that week, just for that ol buzz." - mXm

Since you already own the DVD, wether you watch it or not really doesn't matter to Viacom. They already sold you the product and got their money. Wether you watch it 4 times a day or it's gathering dust under the bed it's all the same to them. - Karas1

Point conceded.

On the grounds that I didn't elaborate the full meaning of my intended point.

So I'll do that now.

It's about mental real-estate and the relation to sales.

Extend the Spongebob mental-real-estate dynamic above one-step-further to see how YouTube works to Star Wars sales benefit.

When you watch a Star Wars spoof or a Star Wars clip on YouTube, it puts Star Wars in that coveted front-of-your-mind real-estate position.

In the Star Wars case because positive memories are associated with it, people tend to want to _re-live_ those memories.

This is why there have been 5 or 6 re-releases of the original Star Wars trilogy, and people _keep buying the new releases_ - people have a personal attachment to the Star Wars experience.

And so, the process goes:

1. the Masses watch a clip of Star Wars on YouTube; Star Wars moves to the front of the consumer's mind.

2. desire to re-live Star Wars takes route in masses minds and they will be inclined to pop in Star Wars sometime that week to re-live the experience.

3. result: Star Wars now holds a SUPER RE-ENFORCED position, it holds the coveted PRIME intellectual real-estate position in people's minds.

(and we do the re-enforcing and moving to that position when we put in our Star Wars DVDs)

Which means

4. The next time that something to do with Star Wars is released (movie or product) people will rush to buy it -because- it holds and this is the important bit imo, a _constantly re-enforced_ prime position in the consumers mind.

I know we're not all pre-programmed robots.

but while true, there are certain known sales dynamics, and the number one of which is that if your product gets into a recurring prominent position in the minds of the masses, you're going to be stinkin filthy rich.

And THAT is precisely what Viacom and all other megacorporations want.

Imo, they're shooting themselves in their tails when they:

a) go after advertising-by-others that effectively advertise their product for them.

and

2) attack their customers.

A lot of these corps are just too antiquated and too set in their old-school mafioso-style ways..

(notably NOT Apple - Jobs figured out people would INDEED pay for Music while the ol mafioso-style-thinking RIAA argued and assumed that people wouldn't pay for something they could get for free - guess which one was right and is increasingly respected and has the number one online music business and music player, and guess which one attacks their own customers? (WTF?!) and can't understand why they're increasingly loathed?)

Imo, some of these megacorps just don't get it.

They're still in Bootlegger Mafioso smash-the-competition's-stills mode.

Anyway, that'd be my view Karas.

I respect that you have your own, I even respect that some megacorporations have their own, I'm just not inclined to believe that what their view really is, and what comes out of their corporate lawyers mouths, are one and the same.

We live in a brave new world where brave new techniques are required for all involved to prosper.

Way I see it, the old-school -system- itself of copyright doesn't apply anymore, what we are really in now is a new age where a _NEW SYSTEM _ for paying artists (and yes, even distributors and middle men) is required.

AISI it's just that when you're the middle-man and you are well aware that you've had it SO good for SO long (sticking it to both the consumer via price fixing and the artists via contract-legalese slash "not my fault you signed a contract with us that pays you less than us for your work, HAHA, call a lawyer!"

well, when you've had it good for that long, you don't WANT to embrace change.

But too bad, the world's already changed, new models are forming, some of these megacorps are on-board and with it (Apple and co) and others just need to catch up (Viacom and co).

or Die.

imo

- mXm

gamera23 • Mar 18, 2007, 05:50pm •

Hey, this is some amazingly heavy discussion for Mania's fluff gossip column with a pin-up shot up top!

On international adoption: currently a couple close to me is in the middle of a 2-year process to adopt from China. It's been terribly difficult and expensive. Why do they do it? Because adopting domestically is even more difficult and expensive, and at the end of it either of the birth parents can come back and take your child away from you.

The issue with celebrity adoptions is that they use their money and fame to pick out any child they choose and gvernments grease the wheels to accomodate them, speeding up the process. If they really want to adopt, that's great, but don't use fame to cut in line while others are following the rules. And don't make it look as easy as shopping at the mall, trivializing it.

Mania is the premiere online destination for fans of science fiction, fantasy, horror, and anime entertainment. It is the largest community offering profiles, video, science fiction movies, sci fi TV, art, sci fi comics, photos, cheats, blogs, science fiction books, forums and feedback. Mania offers insider entertainment industry info and original content for science fiction, fantasy, and horror entertainment genres including: video games, comics, gadgets, movies, television, toys, music, books, DVDs and more. © Mania Entertainment, LLC. 2001 - 2008