Happy Super Tuesday, everybody! No, it’s not a VH1 programming block, or the lamest, most abstract superhero ever. It’s this years’ batch of Republican primaries! EXCITING! Ok, we know it’s not our usual beat, and we know that Hollywood is seen as the most liberal, left-leaning town in all the land. But we’ve managed to compile a list of 40 celebrities who might be taking a long lunch break today to vote for their GOP favorites! (Or you know, since California and New York primaries are a long way off, maybe they’ll just be eating lunch.) The list features one or two usual suspects (Kirk Cameron of Crocoduck fame and NRA honcho Tom Selleck), but it’s jam super PAC’d (sorry) with other stars with surprisingly right leanings, at least according to the info we have (Adam Sandler? Vince Vaughn!? 50 CENT!?). We kid you not, America. Check out the gallery below for more celebs who are possibly seeing red!
[Photo: Getty Images]
Not again. For the second time in two days, I find myself trying to reason with a Hollywood star in order to prevent a potentially disastrous third movie from ruining a previously successful franchise. Yesterday, I tried to reason with Sarah Jessica Parker, who would like to do a third Sex And The City film which I can’t condone, having lost $12.50 and a little bit of my dignity to SaTC:2 this weekend. Today’s installment comes courtesy of Tom Selleck, who confirmed that there is a script floating around for a new Three Men And A Baby film, which would likely be called Three Men And A Bride. Selleck says he and both of his co-stars, Ted Danson and Steve Guttenberg, have checked their schedules in the hopes that they will all be able to make another sequel to the film that cemented their status as Hollywood Hotties Of 1988. (And you KNOW you had a favorite. Personally, mine was Magnum, P.I. himself, but Sam Malone was a close second. Obviously Steve Guttenberg was no one’s favorite.) But really, there are so many reasons why this shouldn’t happen.
1. It is 2010. When the first sequel, Three Men And A Little Lady, was released in 1990, it already felt like the magic was gone from the first film. What makes you think an extra twenty years will help? And who are you marketing the film to, thirty-somethings who loved the original movie when they were in middle school? Do tweens today even know who these actors are? The statute of limitations has passed for another movie – see the first three Star Wars prequels and Indiana Jones And The Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull for further evidence that this is never a good idea.
2. The first film was so awesomely 80s, updating it would make it lose some of its charm. What are they going to do, give us an M.I.A. remix of Miami Sound Machine‘s “Bad Boys” while the men throw an artisanal beer and cheese party at their Hamptons estate? (Because they all still live together…which brings us to point #3).
3. Three successful New York bachelors sharing a townhouse together. Really? That doesn’t happen. Not in the 80s, and not now. And there’s no way you can recreate the magic of the mural of the three men that was painted inside their apartment. And then a stranger (in the form of Nancy Travis with a British accent) drops off a baby and they don’t call child protective services or sue her? There were a lot of things that audiences in the 80s were willing to overlook, but nowadays, this scenario is just too weird to ignore.
The only possible way we will see this film is if it turns out that the creepy dead kid in the window is the groom who is getting married to the titular Baby/Little Lady/Bride. If that’s not the case (and you’re welcome, Disney, I just wrote that movie for you), I’ll be staying at home and watching my other favorite Nancy Travis movie, So I Married An Axe Murderer.
[Photo: Getty Images]