January 7, 2009

day 51

lautner lands moon
looks like michael copon is going to have to look for work somewhere else.  taylor lautner will keep the part of jacob black in new moon, the sequel to megahit twilight, scheduled for release later this year.  after speculation that the babyfaced 16 year old wouldn't be able to handle the "new-and-improved" jacob of the second book (in which the character grows to giant heights and has the appearance of a 25 year old), new moon director chris weitz and series auther stephanie meyer each released statements today that they believed the original cast would be the best choice for continuing the series.  lautner, in an attempt to keep the role that is sure to make him famous, has packed on 19 pounds of muscle and is willing to put on 10+ more lbs before filming of the next installment begins.  fans had also been campaigning to keep the original actor and they are sure to be happy with the choice.  this casting seems to make the most sense - why change something that's not broken? 

donna martin graduates...to 90210 
tori spelling is finally headed back to the zip-code that made her famous.  reprising the role of donna martin, spelling will begin filming in late january for an episode to air later in the season.  spelling had not been willing to return to the show when it was first launched when she learned that returning cast members shannen doherty and jennie garth were getting paid nearly double the salary spelling was offered. jason priestly, the original 90210's brendan, is set to direct the ep.  this should be interesting. as far as i know, only jennie garth will be on the episode alongside spelling. what will donna martin be up to? when the series was first in development, donna was supposed to be owning a "kitson-like" boutique that all the 90210-ers frequent.  oh well, it will be interesting to see what her nose job and boob job will be able to pull off in 2009. 

just a thought...
who is writing magazine headlines these days? ok magazine's latest cover has quite the incoherent title for an article all about britney: "what price fame?" um...it seems like they're missing a word there, like "what price for fame?" you'd think that before a major publication went to shelves and subscribers someone would be "that doesn't look right." maybe i'm missing something, but it just seems like something should be said about this.  

No comments: