Let it go, let it gooooooo …. Turn away and slam the door. I don't care what they're going to say. Let the storm rage on … the cold never bothered me anyway … Oh, I'm sorry, did you just manage to get Disney's Frozen soundtrack out of your head and now it's firmly burrowed back in there like the needle-toothed, all-consuming earworm it is? Don't even bother getting mad at me, because things are about to get worse. Much, much worse.

If you took your kid to Frozen, reluctantly bought the soundtrack afterwards, then deeply regretted that decision after hearing "Do You Wanna Build a Snowman" for the eleventy-frillionth time, you are going to be THRILLED to hear that you'll soon have the chance to re-experience every single blessed song from that movie. In the theaters. Again. Because Disney has announced they're releasing a sing-along version of the animated musical starting January 31st.

Yes. A SING-ALONG VERSION.

Prompted by the insane response to the Frozen soundtrack, Disney is rolling out a special version of the movie with on-screen lyrics to more than 1,000 theaters. According to Walt Disney Studios executive vice president Dave Hollis,

‘Frozen’ fans have embraced the film’s original songs and its soundtrack with such passion—there are countless YouTube videos from people singing songs like ‘Let It Go’—we decided to create a version that would celebrate that enthusiasm. It’s a great opportunity for families to get together and have some fun with these songs.”

I know what you're thinking: will there be any sort of handy visual indication as to which lyric I should be belting out next? The answer, thankfully, is yes: a "magical bouncing snowflake" will lead audience members through each word.

Boy, imagine sitting in a packed theater with scores of children and overly-enthusiastic adults singing "For the First Time in Forever" together. (Don’t know if I’m elated or gassy …) Doesn't it sound like a dream come true? Aren't you lunging for your wallet right now in order to pre-purchase your ticket? Isn't it going to be FANTASTIC to permanently seal every last one of those songs into your brain-folds forever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever???

In conclusion, life as you know it is over. But it'll be okay, Disney will take good care of you. You'll have lots of merchandising options. Don't try and resist. Just … let it go.

Will you be attending a Frozen sing-along in a theater near you?

Image via Disney

When I was a kid, I must have played Bill Cosby's Revenge album about a million times. Ditto to Himself, which is comprised of seven ingenious tracks I can just about recite word for word to this day ("It was because of my father that from the ages of 7 to 15, I thought that my name was Jesus Christ. And my brother, Russell, thought that his name was Dammit"). I tell you this to clarify up front that I have a major soft spot in my heart for Bill Cosby and I think he's one of history's all-time greatest comedians ... but I have grave doubts about his new NBC sitcom.

The Cosby Show pretty much rebooted the genre back in the mid-'80s, and who among us doesn't have fond memories of the Huxtable family? But it's been a long time -- three decades! -- since Bill Cosby dominated the sitcom scene, and I'm just not sure sentimentality is enough to make this new show a hit.

NBC has announced that Bill Cosby will likely be returning to prime time next fall in a new family comedy. The as-yet-unnamed show sounds like it will include some mighty familiar elements: Cosby will play the patriarch of a multigenerational family, and the focus will be on his marriage and parenting views.

Cosby has apparently been working on returning to TV for a while now. In November, he told Yahoo he was interested in creating another family-friendly show:

I want to be able to deliver a wonderful show to [a] network because there is a viewership out there that wants to see comedy, and warmth, and love, and surprise, and cleverness, without going into the party attitude. They would like to see a married couple that acts like they love each other, warts and all, children who respect the parenting, and the comedy of people who make mistakes. Warmth and forgiveness. So I hope to get that opportunity, and I will deliver the best of Cosby, and that will be a series, I assume, that we could get enough people week after week after week to tune in to, to come along with us.

I can think of a million reasons why we'd WANT a new Cosby Show. It was a legitimately funny, heartwarming, uncontroversial series that paved the way for black sitcoms on major networks (which have since largely disappeared), and of course Cosby's parenting riffs are even more hilarious now that those of us who watched his show in the '80s have kids of our own.

But Cosby is 76 years old now, and I'm not sure the seemingly inevitable wacky-grandpa bit is going to be the ratings goldmine NBC is hoping for. The man is a comedic legend, but as Michael J. Fox's show has proven, putting a beloved star into an anemic series is just kind of a depressing move for everyone.

Then again, Bill Cosby is the man who once changed a generation of TV stereotypes, so perhaps he'll be the one who will represent older Americans as something other than bad-driving, outdated-view-having, cantankerous, forgetful coots. Fingers crossed he can bring some of that Cosby magic to a unique, original sitcom -- one that doesn't prioritize nostalgia over quality.

 What do you think about a new Bill Cosby sitcom? Will you give it a chance?

Image via pennstatelive/Flickr

Hey, zombie fans, are you ready for some serious action this Super Bowl Sunday? Oh yeah, the bone-crunching hits! The epic battles! The violent spectacle of humans fighting other humans for the chance at victory!! I am of course not talking about football, which is mostly boring as hell. I'm talking about the THE WALKING DEAD ZOMBIE BOWL.

For those who aren't terribly interested in tuning in for the entire Seahawks vs. Broncos showdown, AMC has scheduled a Walking Dead marathon for Sunday, February 2. It starts at 10 in the morning and runs all day long, so you can enjoy every single "zombie hit and tackle" from season 1 and 2. If you're feeling on the fence about this -- I mean, even if you're not a sports fan, the Super Bowl definitely has some fun commercials, right? -- AMC's hilarious Zombie Bowl promo just might convince you to skip the big game.

Here's how AMC's pitching the marathon:

Fans of The Walking Dead, TV's #1 non-sports show, won't be left out on one of television's biggest nights of the year. Every Humans vs. Walkers moment from The Walking Dead's season one and two will run in a marathon all the way through the big game. Fans looking to be part of the action will have a full day and night of zombie hits and tackles so they can catch up on early episodes before the midseason premiere on February 9th.

This paves the way for season 3 and 4 re-airing on Saturday, February 8 -- as a lead-in for the mid-season premiere on February 9. In other words, you can re-watch the ENTIRE SERIES before season 4 returns. I have to say, that doesn't necessarily sound hugely appealing (ugh, that endless search for Sophia), but the Zombie Bowl promo makes me feel all nostalgic for The Walking Dead That Was. Check it out:

Step aside, Richard Sherman! Your post-game rant has nothin' on Daryl's trash talk.

Whether or not you plan to tune in for the Zombie Bowl, the best news here is that we're only a couple weeks from the premiere. Here's AMC's description for the second half of season 4:

Following the devastating events of the mid-season finale, Rick and the group are still reeling from the loss of their home, family, and friends. With the destruction of the prison, we see the group of survivors broken apart and sent on divergent paths, unsure of everyone else’s fate. What was a challenging life behind fences and walls grows that much more perilous and precious as they are exposed to new dangers, new enemies, and heartbreaking choices. They will have their faith thoroughly tested — a faith that breaks some of them and redeems others.

CANNOT. WAIT.

Will you be watching any of the Zombie Bowl on Super Bowl Sunday?

Image via AMC

Here is a completely deranged question that's not even worth asking because seriously there's only one possible answer: would you like to see David Beckham naked? Of course you would. Which is why retailer H&M's Super Bowl commercial teaser is really sort of ridiculous, except for the fact that I've mayyyyyybe already watched it like three times.

H&M's video campaign is all about soccer star and uber-hottie David Beckham, as he shows off the retailer's newest bodywear line while performing a variety of stunts and action moves in his attempt to make his way to safety after getting locked out during a photo shoot. The question posed by H&M is whether the ad should end with Beckham clad in a pair of oh-so-attractive briefs ... or whether he should be completely nude.

Apparently, all we have to do to ensure the #uncovered outcome is cast a vote. COULD IT REALLY BE THAT EASY?

Well, I doubt it, considering they're not likely to air Beckham's actual wang during the Super Bowl. But here, take a look at the video and tell me what you think:

First of all, can we just take a moment to appreciate the decision to include this awesomely phallic arrow at the end of the clip?

Okay, back to the matter in my hand. In our hands. AT HAND. *cough* In theory, voting #uncovered on the H&M website will result in a birthday-suit grand finale aired during the second quarter of the Super Bowl on February 2.

Tragically, I'm sure the creative team has something planned that doesn't quite venture into full-frontal territory, being as how it's national television and all. Still, covered or uncovered (or as is likely, strategically implied uncovered-ness), I'm pretty interested to see the final product. Well played, Hennes & Mauritz, Swedish multinational retail clothing company! I still don't know what 'heritage-inspired bodywear' is, but I'm for SURE eager to see more.

What's your vote for Beckham at the Super Bowl: covered or uncovered?

Image via H&M

If you watched the Grammys until the bitter end last night, you may have noticed that by the time Nine Inch Nails took the stage along with Queens of the Stone Age, Lindsey Buckingham, and Dave Grohl, the show was running a little late -- as evidenced by the network cutting off their musical extravaganza. Their finale got most of the way through the second song, then CBS began running promos and credits as the tunes continued in the background. One thing's for sure: Trent Reznor noticed this, and he tweeted his opinion to the network and/or show organizers with a "heartfelt" FIRETRUCK YOU.

Okay, he didn't actually post "firetruck you" on Twitter, but I wanted to give you a chance to delicately avert your gaze before I share his actual rant. I guess it's nice to know that at 48 (!!) years old, Reznor is still raging against … well, whoever. But also: dude, grow up.

It's true that the NIN performance had been hyped for days leading up to the show, and the all-star grand finale was supposed to celebrate rock n' roll in a big way. Unfortunately, the performance got cut off during Queens of the Stone Age's "My God Is the Sun" as the network transitioned to promotional messages for Hilton hotels and other sponsors.

That sucks, for sure. But it also wasn't really unexpected: the Grammys are notorious for running late, and the last performance is often cut short. Example: Bruce Springsteen and Sir Paul McCartney's 2012 performance, during which the plug was pulled partway through their rendition of "Twist and Shout." It's also happened to Arcade Fire; a supergroup of LL Cool J, Chuck D, Tom Morello, Z-Trip, and Travis Barker; and Stevie Wonder.

Recording Academy president Neil Portnow explained the programming decision to reporters backstage:

We save the end slot for something that is a bit of a jam, because you can have the energy go and then it’s just a matter of the clock.

It doesn't sound like Reznor's buying it, though. Here's what he tweeted last night:

Music's biggest night... to be disrespected. A heartfelt FUCK YOU guys.

No one should be all that surprised that Trent Reznor isn't happy with the Grammys, considering what he said in 2011:

Why don’t the Grammys matter? Because it feels rigged and cheap — like a popularity contest that the insiders club has decided.  

It's hard not to wonder why he'd even agree to perform at a "rigged" awards show that doesn't matter … but judging by his outburst, I'm guessing he won't be back any time soon.

What do you think of Reznor's tweet? Justified, or immature?

Image via Flickr/iamaliciarodriguez

"Eat clean. Train dirty." "Complaining never burned calories." "Your body won't go where your mind doesn't push it." "Someone who is busier than you is running RIGHT NOW." "If it were easy, everyone would be doing it." "Suck it up now ... and you won't have to suck it in later."

You've seen these 'fitspo' sayings, right? They're usually printed in big blocky letters against some supposedly inspirational photo of someone who looks more like a porn star than any real-life female I've ever seen kicking ass at the gym. These images of overly sexualized body parts combined with bumper-sticker mottos are pinned all over Pinterest, shared on Instagram, occasionally posted on Facebook -- and they're annoying as hell.

There are lots of reasons why fitspo doesn't turn me on. It's bullshit, for one thing: all those sayings about "Strong is the new skinny" might feel slightly less hypocritical if they weren't consistently stamped over images of women with, like, 9 percent body fat. In my mind, they encourage impossible standards, they prioritize aesthetics over health, and their "empowering" words are actually custom-designed to remind you that you're not good enough.

But hey:

I happen to think the vast majority of fitspo images are annoying and maybe even downright damaging, but it's a free country and people are certainly allowed to pin all the annoying/damaging things they want. Plus, as with most things, meaningfulness is in the eye of the beholder. As former beauty queen and fitness-inspirer Maria Kang might tell me,

I'm sorry you took an image and resonated with it in such a negative way. (...) What you interpret is not MY fault. It's yours. The first step in owning your life, your body, and your destiny is to OWN the thoughts that come out of your own head. I didn't create them. You created them.

Boy, do I ever have the PERFECT workout shirt for that lady:

Via Screened

Anyway. Fitspo images probably aren't going away any time soon, but I'll keep on eye-rolling them, because the things that actually motivate me to work out and eat healthfully don't have anything to do with crotch-baring booty shorts, surgically enhanced sweaty cleavages, or meme-making websites that exist for the sole purpose of allowing you to drop all caps sans-serif shareable slogans onto a woman's naked torso.

I'm committed to a fitness routine these days because it makes me feel better. It's part of my recovery plan, to maintain my mental health and steer clear of addictive behaviors. It gives me more energy, it keeps depression at bay, it helps me deal with the challenges of working from home.

And yeah, it makes me happier with the person I see in the mirror, in a number of different ways. It's not entirely about vanity, but I won't lie: it's not NOT about vanity.

But even thought I care about what I look like, and I do have appearance-related goals for myself, they have nothing to do with this sort of thing:

Via Pinterest

That woman's body might be a realistic goal for some (although not many, I'd wager), but it's not for me. I'm simply not built anything like that person. For one thing, I could restrict my diet to water and shredded paper and my waist wouldn't look like that, because my midsection is far more straight than curved no matter how lean or toned I am. How sad is it to aspire to be something that's pretty much as physically possible as growing four inches in height or changing your natural hair color?

Something that has helped me greatly with body image in recent months is really taking a look around my gym during a workout class. I mean, have you ever done this? Have you looked at the women who are kicking ass, who are clearly in great shape, and noticed how they're all shaped completely differently -- and how few of them look like a fitspo model?

Via Amazon

It's funny, but the stronger and more in shape I get, the more demeaning I find these fitness platitudes. Because I know what it takes for me to get up, lace on the gym shoes, and put in the hard work, day in and day out. It can't be distilled into a five-word graphic ... and it sure as shit has nothing to do with some 20-year-old model's thigh gap.

What's your take on the fitspo trend?

Image via Pinterest

You've got your DVR all prepped to record The Walking Dead midseason premiere on February 9, right? Butt-dent in your couch is fluffed, popcorn's on standby, children have been informed that they're going to bed early that day because Mommy has some very important zombie-watching to do? Okay then, it sounds like you're ready for the next item on your Walking Dead to-do list: wild speculation over the episode's just-released images.

AMC has shared a few photo stills from the premiere along with an episode synopsis, and while the network is pretty deliberate in its revelations, it's juuuuuuuust enough to whet our appetites for the show's much-anticipated return.

The midseason premiere is appropriately titled "After," and here's the official description:

Following the devastating events of the mid-season finale, Rick and the group are still reeling from the loss of their home, family, and friends. With the destruction of the prison, we see the group of survivors broken apart and sent on divergent paths, unsure of everyone else's fate. What was a challenging life behind fences and walls grows that much more perilous and precious as they are exposed to new dangers, new enemies, and heartbreaking choices. They will have their faith thoroughly tested -- a faith that breaks some of them and redeems others.

We know that in the wake of the Governor's attack, things are reminiscent of the early episodes before the survivors had a home base. As Andrew Lincoln put it,

People have been spun into orbit. Everybody’s been separated and it’s a terrifying world that we inhabit again.

Executive producer Gale Anne Hurd recently teased that not everyone will be looking to band back together:

They are seeking to reunite, some decided to leave others behind.

Interesting. Okay, on to the images -- the first is focused on Michonne, who's apparently once again making good use of the zombies-on-a-leash trick she learned early on.

It sounds like the premiere will give us some insight into Michonne, perhaps explaining how she knew her former zombie pets. E! News previewed episode 9, and while they didn't exactly rave over it ("it's definitely not one of The Walking Dead's most exciting episodes"), they had this to say about Michonne:

(...) we are going to get a deeper peek into Michonne's pre-zombie life. We were shocked to see that before our stern-faced character became a sword-wielding killer, she was just a regular woman who smiled a lot. Living in a postapocalyptic world would definitely drain anyone of their happiness, but after learning more about her past, we're definitely more empathic with Michonne's cold exterior.

Do you remember that moment back in season three in which Michonne said of her original chained-up zombies, "They weren't human to begin with"? When you consider that along with Michonne's reaction to holding baby Judith, I'm guessing she's got quite the horrific backstory.

The final two photos from the midseason premiere give us a look at Carl, who appears to be somewhat on his own while Rick's out of it -- either with illness or grief over Judith or both. It looks like the two of them hole up in an abandoned house, with Carl taking point on walker-dispatching.

Last but not least, here's AMC's latest trailer for the return of season 4:

What do you think of what you've seen so far for The Walking Dead? What's your best guess on what happened to Michonne?

Images via AMC

Let's say, just theoretically, Fast and Furious uber-action-stud Vin Diesel were to release a video of himself dancing to Katy Perry's "Dark Horse" and Beyonce's "Drunk in Love." I don't mean some little 6-second Vine clip, either. I mean a 7-minute, 29-second long video. Would you guess that he'd only do this if he had some seriously impressive dance skills?

Because if so, you'd be wrong. OH SO WRONG. Vin Diesel's surprisingly lengthy, hilariously terrible dance video selfie is ... I don't even know. It's like watching an Emperor penguin tearing it up on the dance floor. It's even worse than my husband, whose default moves include a mimed ass slap. It's so bad I officially love Vin Diesel for sharing it, because only someone with a fantastic sense of humor would do so.

Sohere's what Vin Diesel posted to his Facebook page early Tuesday, Jan. 28:

You thought I was kidding about the penguin thing, didn't you? I WAS SO NOT KIDDING ABOUT THE PENGUIN THING.

I am also deeply enjoying whatever is happening here:

And here:

Aaaaaaaand here:

If you're wondering what had him so happy he was busting those amazing moves all over the place, it's because Universal had just told him his film Riddick was number one on the DVD charts. Aw, Vin Diesel was just too excited to sit still!

In conclusion, I love it, and I love him. Even though Riddick was terrible.

Are you totally going to work Vin Diesel's signature penguin waddle into your dance routine now?

Images via Facebook

Have you read John Green's The Fault in Our Stars? Because if not: listen, you should go read The Fault in Our Stars. In an inadequate nutshell, it's the story of a teen couple who meet and fall in love through a child cancer support group, and it's exactly as terribly sad as you'd think it would be -- but it's also indescribably beautiful. It's the sort of young adult novel that stays with you forever, and it's generated thousands upon thousands of fans who have been waiting with bated breath for the moment that has just happened: the first trailer for the film adaptation has hit the web.

I cried like a baby when I read the book, but I definitely didn't expect to well up while watching the trailer. Which is why I'm going to warn you, get the Kleenex ready -- in just 2 minutes and 30 seconds, this clip manages to deliver some of the same full-bodied feelings that the book does.

The official movie description from 20th Century Fox:

Hazel (Shailene Woodley) and Gus (Ansel Elgort) are two extraordinary teenagers who share an acerbic wit, a disdain for the conventional, and a love that sweeps them -- and us -- on an unforgettable journey. Their relationship is all the more miraculous, given that they met and fell in love at a cancer support group. THE FAULT IN OUR STARS, based upon the number-one bestselling novel by John Green, explores the funny, thrilling and tragic business of being alive and in love.

Hazel starts out the trailer by saying, "I believe we have a choice in this world about how to tell sad stories." Here's the first official glimpse at how the TFIOS will tell Hazel and Gus's story:

Oh, I love it. I had mixed feelings when I saw the poster (I wasn't really feeling the "One sick love story" tagline), but this trailer makes me very hopeful that the movie will be as gorgeous and sad and powerful as the book is, in its own way. It really looks like The Fault in Our Stars is shaping up to be an amazing film experience, and I can't wait for it to hit theaters on June 6. I'll be bringing, like, a BOX of tissues.

What do you think of this trailer?

Image via 20th Century Fox

Let me just say up front that I do not condone violence against Taylor Swift. I may find her annoying, from her earwormy music to her patented awards show "Oh I am so shocked I have won yet again!" face (which she deployed a little too quickly during the Grammys on Sunday) to her unnecessarily bitchy response to being the target of a Tina Fey joke ("There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help other women"). But let's be clear: I definitely don't think Taylor Swift should be repeatedly kicked in the face, either while playing a piano or in any other situation.

That said, I am greatly enjoying the incredible Street Fighter/Taylor Swift video that's been circulating since the Grammys, which imagines a world in which her head-banging during "All Too Well" was actually the result of taking a well-aimed foot to the forehead.

I missed her hair-whipping, neck-snapping performance of "All Too Well" during the Grammy Awards on Sunday night, but some clever person took a look at her repeated head tosses and saw what was missing: Ryu from Street Fighter.

Here's Taylor Swift, taking some high kicks like a champ:

See this video on The Stir by CafeMom.

Sadly, Ryu was no match for Swift’s relationship-plundering, intense-piano-flailing talent, and she continually bounced back like a pro. He must train harder, and perhaps they will meet again someday. In a celebrity-studded audience, maybe, as he nails her right in that surprised O face of hers.

Are you a rabid Taylor Swift fan who's never ever ever going to talk to me again, like, EVER?

Image via YouTube

Gather 'round, young people, and let the crotchety old Stir writer tell you a wild and exotic tale from long ago ... when Super Bowl commercials actually aired during the game, and not a minute beforehand. Why, we had to wait through hours of football to see all the ads! Uphill, both ways, in the snow! Now you whippersnappers can see the newfangled branding campaigns on the interwebs with just a click of your thingamamouse -- like, for instance, Ellen DeGeneres’s awesome fairytale-themed spot for Beats Music.

Considering the astronomical cost of airing a commercial during the Super Bowl, I'm not surprised companies have been gearing up by promoting their ... uh, promotions. And if anyone can make an ad fun to watch, it's Ellen, who shared the clip on her talk show today. In it, she plays a sort of hipster Goldilocks who samples the Three Bears' music, and -- well, it's hard to explain, but it's very cute.

Replace porridge, chairs, and beds with music, and you've got the general idea of what Ellen gets up to when she sneaks into the Three Bears' swanky urban condo. The whole thing ends in an Ellen-erific dance party, thanks to the streaming power of Beats Music (which I guess is a music app that works similarly to Pandora?). Check it out:

See this video on The Stir by CafeMom.

Okay, three things:

• Ellen really looks amazing for being 56. And I will never get tired of watching her dance.

• I'm in love with her manicure.

• Did you see the bigass "MAMA" cowboy belt buckle? Nice detail work, ad agency.

All the lucky Ellen Show studio audience members who previewed the clip also got a new smartphone -- loaded with Beats, of course. You get a Beats! And you get a Beats! EVERYONE GETS A BEATS!

Anyway, the best part about seeing all these clever, feel-good ads now is that you can actually leave the room during the Super Bowl without missing a thing -- AND you can ruin it for other people if you want. "Oh, the Ellen video?" you can say airily, as you head off to get more nachos. "Saw it already. At the end she dances with a bunch of bears and wolves. Also, the Budweiser horses stop the driver from taking back the puppy."

What did you think of Ellen's Super Bowl clip?

Image via YouTube

Pop quiz: who are the spookiest identical twins in history? That's right, these folks. My god, the hair ... the necklaces ... the PANTS. I can't even look at that image anymore! MY EYEESSSSS okay I'm kidding. Obviously the only correct answer is the Grady twins, from Stanley Kubrick's The Shining, who uttered the iconic line, "Come and play with us, Danny. Forever ... and ever ... and ever" and thus became recurring characters in our collective nightmares every single year since the movie aired in 1980.

If you, like me, have a special traumatized area of your brain where the Grady twins live -- right next to the elevator of blood, two floors down from the dead woman in the bathtub in room 237 -- you may find it therapeutic to see what the twins look like now. They've made it easy to do so, because they're on Twitter.

Yes. The Shining twins are on Twitter. What a world, what a world.

The real-life twins are named Lisa and Louise Burns, and apparently they never did return to acting after scaring the bejesus out of everyone in The Shining. Lisa went on to earn a degree in literature, and Louise became a microbiologist.

The Burns sisters, who were 12 when they appeared in The Shining, are now 46, and they recently attended the 50th anniversary screening of Stanley Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove. The British Film Institute tweeted a photo of them while linking to the twins' own Twitter account.

Do you recognise the @Shining_twins? Special guests at our anniversary screening of Stanley Kubrick's Dr Strangelove pic.twitter.com/5x0DLPiPrq

Aw, they look great, don't they? And isn't it a strange relief to see them all grown up and healthy and not haunting our subconscious? Their account is titled, appropriately enough, @Shining_twins, and it appears they have a good sense of humor about their spooky reputation:

Oh, and here's a piece of Shining trivia for you: the fictional Grady sisters weren't actually supposed to be identical twins -- they were supposed to be 8 and 10. Who knew? Maybe we were too distracted by all the ... um, other stuff to notice what their ages were supposed to be.

Are you a Shining fan? Isn't it cool to see what the twins look like now?

Images via Warner Bros, Twitter

Now that we're just days from The Walking Dead's midseason premiere, the lucky bastards at TV Guide have started doling out some intriguing hints about the much-anticipated season 4 episode 9 that's scheduled to air on February 9th. Not only did they get an early look at the premiere, they're teasing us about what they know. Damn you, television critics who lord your press access over the rest of us unwashed peasants, I refuse to play your little game of -- oh who am I kidding. HOOK IT TO MY VEINS, TV GUIDE.

The latest scoop from the critics' corner confirms that we will in fact get some major backstory on Michonne, but also that we can expect to see the Governor again. What? The Governor as in the guy who straight-up died at the end of the midseason finale? Apparently so -- and there's an equally eyebrow-raising hint about Carl.

Here's what TV Guide posted in response to a reader's request for inside info on the return of The Walking Dead:

Don't expect to see too many familiar faces since Rick and Carl take center stage when the AMC drama returns. While Rick heals from his beating from The Governor — whom you will see again — Carl will lose something very important to him. (No, not his innocence!) In other news, it won't be long before this mystery is blown wide open.

"This mystery" refers to the moment earlier in the season when Michonne reacted so emotionally to holding baby Judith. Here's what showrunner Scott Gimple said about the scene:

You saw her holding that baby and crying and that is absolutely in service to a story. That wasn't random. Your questions will be answered. That is an important moment for the character and the series.

Executive producer Robert Kirkman added,

At the end of this season, you'll learn more about Michonne than all of Season 3. That scene in Episode 2 with Michonne is the beginning of a very long story about her that will be told over the course of this season that is going to really open her character up. We're going to see what really makes her tick.

So it definitely sounds like we can expect to get deeper into Michonne's story during the midseason premiere, but what's that business about the Governor? We'll "see him again"?  

The rumor mill was churning a while back on the possibility that the Governor didn't really die, but personally, I'm guessing the scene or scenes in the midseason premiere that involve him will be a flashback. I guess he might reappear as a walker, although that would make Walking Dead producer Gale Hurd a liar. As she's said in interviews, "That was a head shot!"

Moving on to Carl: what could he lose that would be important to him? Comics fans knows he loses something later in the story that's fairly, ah, close to him. But for now I'm thinking … maybe that one treasured photo of his family? While the obvious guess is his hat, I don't think there's any way the show would ditch something that's so visually integral to his character. Losing the photo feels like it would work with his overall storyline of becoming increasingly independent -- and detached.

What do you think about these teases? Any thoughts on how the Governor will return, or what Carl loses?

Image via AMC

Have you ever noticed how children, who are the exact same people who have the ability to blow the tiniest thing out of proportion and build enormous tantruming mountains from barely visible molehills, can be weirdly proficient at helping you get perspective in a situation sometimes? If you've ever been, say, stuck in traffic and mentally cursing the sea of red lights in front of you only to hear a cheery voice pipe up from the backseat, "Ooh, that cloud looks like a FLYING PANDA," you know what I mean.

In a similar vein, kids often take things super literally and thus are highly skilled at deflating your most passionate figure-of-speech queries. As in, the things you randomly blurt out loud to absolutely NO ONE as you go about your daily mom business at home. (You don't do this? Pshh. Next thing you'll try to tell me you eat peanut butter spread on bread and not shoveled directly into your nom-hole from the jar.)

For instance:

What I say: "How are we out of milk already? I just went to the store!"

Their response: "I think we drinked it all."

What I say: "Arrrgh! I feel like the laundry NEVER ENDS."

Their response: "That's because we're always wearing clothes."

What I say: "Seriously, nothing today? What's up with THAT?"

Their response: "No one must have mailed you anything."

What I say: "How many times have I told you to turn off the lights in your room when you're not in there?"

Their response: "... Lots of times."

What I say: "Holy cow, why are the windows so dirty?"

Their response: "Looks like you need to clean them."

What I say: "I wonder if you possibly could get ANY closer to the television?"

Their response: "Probably!"

What I say: "Wow, look at this! Awesome! But are you sure they got the right kid? Har de har har."

Their response: "Yeah. See, it says Dylan? That's my name."

What I say: *humming to myself* "Who let the cats out? Who? Who? Who? Who?"

Their response: "You did. Like five minutes ago."

Does this phenomenon happen in your house too?

Images via Linda Sharps

Benedict Cumberbatch and Sesame Street: two great tastes that taste great together? Come on, like you even have to ask. Whoever's running the guest-star side of things at Sesame Workshop should get a biscuit for bringing everyone's favorite awkwardly-named British hottie on the show, because the results are predictably awesome.

In the clip, Sherlock -- excuse me, Cumberbatch -- must face a tricky challenge presented by Murray-arity the Muppet. Does the table have more apples on it or more oranges? I'm not going to spoil the answer for you, but I will tell you that the clip includes a very, very sneaky Sherlock spoiler. If you've seen season 3 cliffhanger finale, you'll definitely recognize a certain scene in the Sesame Street version.

So here's the setup: Murray-arity, Benedict's self-declared arch-nemesis, presents a "brain-bending challenge." Sherlock -- dammit, Cumberbatch -- enlists the help of an expert in counting: Snuffleupagus.

Ha. No. The COUNT, obviously. Anyway, before the apples/oranges mystery unraveling gets underway, the clip opens with Murray blurting a familiar line. Check it out:

See this video on The Stir by CafeMom.

Well, DID YOU? The game is on!

Anyway, I like the Muppets and I like Benedict Cumberbatch and I like sly references to nerdy TV shows most of all, so I find this entire thing quite enjoyable. Then again, I'd probably watch a clip of Cumberbatch laboriously synching his smartphone, so it's maybe theoretically possible my personal bar for this video wasn't all that high.

MeeeeYOW.

What did you think of this clip? Are you a Sherlock fan?

Image via YouTube

Here's what we can be absolutely sure of when The Walking Dead returns on February 9: the survivors' situation is FUBAR. They've scattered in all directions after being forced to leave the prison in the wake of the Governor's attack, so everyone's broken up into smaller groups and no one knows who's alive or dead.

While pretty much everything else about the second half of season 4 is guesswork at this point, it sounds like we can expect to see some new faces at the end of the February 16 episode, which is titled, "Inmates." Comics fans will instantly recognize the names from the original story, and now that casting's confirmed, we can get an early look at who will be playing these characters.

(Semi-spoilers ahead!)

Here are the three new survivors who will be joining The Walking Dead story, and brief character descriptions from the comics:

Dr. Eugene Porter. Eugene was a high school science teacher before the zombie uprising, and he claims to be a scientist with knowledge about how the plague spread. His mission is to travel to Washington, DC, to reunite with surviving government and military personnel. Also, he has a sweet-ass mullet.

Eugene will be played by Josh McDermitt, who was a semi-finalist on the fourth season of NBC’s Last Comic Standing and also starred as Brandon in the TV Land sitcom Retired at 35.

Abraham Ford. Abraham was an Army sergeant and sports coach before the outbreak. He has some, ah, let's just call them "rage issues." He's traveling with Eugene and Rosita Espinoza, with whom he has a romantic relationship.

Abraham will be played by Michael Cudlitz, a star of the TNT series Southland.

Rosita Espinosa. Rosita was essentially trading sex for protection before meeting up with Abraham. She doesn't share too much about herself at this point in the story, but plays a bigger role later on. (At least in the comics. Who knows how the show will change all of these characters.)

Rosita will be played by Christian Serratos, who held the role of Angela Weber in the Twilight movies.

All right, those are the new cast members -- let's move on to this intriguing Q&A with Norman Reedus.

Are Daryl and Beth on the run together?

Well, you definitely saw them leave the prison together. Whether they stay together is yet to be seen. Everything is gone. Everyone is on the run. Daryl had found an identity with these people and was starting to feel good about himself in a lot of ways but everything has just come crashing to a halt. He assumes everyone is dead. He’s got to start over. Everyone is in a really bad place right now.

What about the Carol situation -- is Daryl going to freak out about that?

Daryl going into this first episode doesn’t even know if everyone is alive. Right now he thinks everyone is dead. You may or may not see a backlash. The way that we shot that and the way that we directed that, it was left very open-ended. I like the way we didn’t wrap up that storyline with a nice bow yet.

Can we expect a Daryl-centric show in the second half of season 4, because that would be AWESOME?

There’s a big Daryl episode coming up soon. It was such a grueling, hard shoot, but it came out really well. There’s a couple other episodes based around other characters who do some of the best work you’ve seen them do. I can’t wait for people to see these back eight.

Just four more days, people. SO EXCITED.

What do you think about these new characters? If you read the comics, do they look the part?

Images via AMC, Funny Farm, Instagram

OMG you guys, did you hear about the Red Hot Chili Peppers? They totally just admitted that their Super Bowl XLVIII halftime performance was FAKE. As in, their guitars weren't even plugged IN. I can't believe it! Is nothing sacred? What gives these so-called "musicians" the right to play in front of a record 115.3 million viewers when all they're doing is PRETENDING? This is the worst news I've heard since Hostess announced their bankruptcy! I DEMAND PREDICTABILITY IN LIFE AND THAT INCLUDES LIVE PERFORMANCES AND A PLENTIFUL SUPPLY OF TWINKIES.

Okay, I'm kidding. I truly couldn't care less that the Red Hot Chili Peppers' performance was pre-recorded, particularly when 1) you read their actual statement about the band's decision, and 2) you consider the FAR more egregious acts of lip-syncing that have gone down elsewhere in entertainment history.

Sharp-eyed viewers may have noticed that the Red Hot Chili Peppers' instruments weren't actually connected to anything during their performance, a fact which was pointed out on Twitter by a former Living Color guitarist with the following criticism:

That guitar is plugged into NOTHING. It's a flaw in the illusion. They slipped up by not covering that for camera.

Even Axl Rose chimed in with an amusing theory involving a futuristic butt-implant:

Consider that maybe sometime before their actual performance that rather than use a guitar cord or standard wireless, that in the name of science and for all mankind Flea courageously had a newly invented breakthrough in microchip technology installed in his ass that picked up the frequencies of his bass and transmitted them to his amplifier.

Flea has since posted a lengthy update on the band's website, and you know what? It's a GREAT explanation. Here are a few excerpts:

When we were asked by the NFL and Bruno to play our song "Give It Away" at the Super Bowl, it was made clear to us that the vocals would be live, but the bass, drums, and guitar would be pre-recorded. I understand the NFL's stance on this, given they only have a few minutes to set up the stage, there a zillion things that could go wrong and ruin the sound for the folks watching in the stadium and the t.v. viewers. There was not any room for argument on this, the NFL does not want to risk their show being botched by bad sound, period. (...) We decided that, with Anthony singing live, that we could still bring the spirit and freedom of what we do into the performance, and of course we played every note in the recording specially for the gig.

(...) For the actual performance, Josh, Chad, and I were playing along with the pre recorded track so there was no need to plug in our guitars, so we did not. Could we have plugged them in and avoided bumming people out who have expressed disappointment that the instrumental track was pre recorded? Of course easily we could have and this would be a non-issue. We thought it better to not pretend. It seemed like the realest thing to do in the circumstance. It was like making a music video in front of a gazillion people, except with live vocals, and only one chance to rock it. Our only thought was to bring the spirit of who we are to the people.

I completely understand where he's coming from, and the fact that they were so up front about miming the instrumentals -- and that Keidis was singing live -- made their show a LOT more honest than some of the more scandalous pre-recorded performances.

I mean, remember Ashlee Simpson's disastrous SNL gig, when her recorded voice started playing to the wrong "live" song, and she reacted by doing a weird Hee-Haw-style dance before walking offstage?

Or how about Beyonce lip-syncing the National Anthem on Inauguration Day, complete with removing her earpiece mid-song to make it look more authentic?

Or Britney's 2007 VMA "performance," which was HORRIBLY lip-synced. But then again, who could notice that when we were so mesmerized by her tragic dancing?

Even Mariah Carey made headlines for a 2008 appearance on Good Morning America, after her performance of "Touch My Body" wasn't on track with the background track. (She "covered it up" by scolding a backup singer.)

And let's not forget Milli Vanilli, most infamous fake-singers of all time. As they performed onstage live in 1989, the recording of the song "Girl You Know It's True" began to skip, repeating the partial line "Girl, you know it's ..." over and over. CRINGE.

In my opinion, what the Red Hot Chili Peppers did wasn't deceitful at all, and in fact, given the requirements they were working with, I think their choice of playing unplugged to a recorded track was perfectly fine. If viewers are going to get fired up at anyone, it should be the NFL -- at this point, it seems like a giant no-duh that the halftime show isn't exactly 100 percent live.

What do you think about the Chili Peppers' explanation for their unplugged instruments?

Image via CNN

Did you happen to see the oddball story about how actor Tom Sizemore was recorded saying that his ex Elizabeth Hurley once had a year-long affair with President Bill Clinton? After, as Tom described it, Clinton met Tom at a White House event and demanded Hurley's number by saying, "Give it to me. You dumb mother*****r, I’m the Commander-in-Chief of the United States of America. The buck stops here. Give me the damn number." Sizemore said Clinton then called Hurley and manfully announced, "I'm keeping the world from nuclear war all the time. I’m sending a plane to pick you up."

If something about all that seemed a little ... off to you, you're right. History may never know whether Bill Clinton's extramarital pillow talk ever referenced nuclear war, but Tom Sizemore has admitted the whole thing was a lie. Not that he's denying he said it in the first place, mind you -- but he wasn't exactly in his right mind when he told the story.

In an interview this week, Sizemore told HuffPost Live that the Clinton/Hurley story -- which was apparently caught on tape and obtained by Radar Online -- was a total fabrication.

It's not true. I was never at the White House, I've never met Bill Clinton.

As for why he said all that stuff, he explains that the recording was made during a period of his life when he was dealing with a major drug addiction.

I'm not denying that I said these things. I don't remember saying them, but it's an old video tape, and they're the rantings of a guy ... it's been well-chronicled that I had a very severe drug problem.

Sizemore -- who was once addicted to coke, heroin, and meth -- has been sober for almost five years and says he takes regular drug tests. He recently published a memoir titled By Some Miracle I Made It Out of There, which details his years of addiction and multiple arrests, and appeared on Celebrity Rehab With Dr. Drew in 2008.

I'm sure Sizemore's past has come back to haunt him time and time again in his sobriety, but it's pretty lame a tabloid would even run this story, since I'm sure it was painfully obvious on the recording that he was high at the time. Good for him for completely owning up to the fact that he said it and what the circumstances were for him at the time.

He's also apologized to both Hurley and former President Clinton:

I'd like to apologize to her for any hurt or BS I caused her or the Clintons.

As for Hurley, she dismissed Sizemore's tale as "ludicrously silly" and said the matter was "in the hands of my lawyers." If she really does sue, in my opinion it'd be nice to see Radar Online held responsible for their part in publishing the story in the first place.

Do you think Tom Sizemore should have to legally account for this old story?

Image via Twitter

File this news under Things That Should Not Be: rapper DMX will apparently be fighting George Zimmerman in an upcoming celebrity boxing match -- assuming he gets paid enough. Excuse me: "celebrity" boxing match. You'll just have to imagine me doing exaggerated air quotes around that word, because really? George Zimmerman, the guy acquitted of second-degree murder and manslaughter charges for killing 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, the guy who's had seven police incidents since 2005 including domestic disputes and restraining orders, is considered a CELEBRITY? And frankly, DMX isn't much better, what with his arrests for animal cruelty, reckless driving, unlicensed driving, drug possession, and identity falsification.

Boxing promoter Damon Feldman admits the obvious, which is that he's "just in this to make money," but does the world really want to see such a matchup? If a recent White House petition is any proof, the answer is a rounding HELL NO.

Apparently DMX was selected out of 15,000 applicants after George Zimmerman issued the open challenge to fight anyone willing to take him. Promoter Zeldman managed to make the announcement on the eve of what would have been Trayvon Martin's 19th birthday (which he said was unintentional), and he says he's taking the backlash in stride:

My events are always surrounded by controversy. That’s what Celebrity Boxing is about. I’m in business. This is all just business for me. I don’t know Zimmerman other than talking to him seven times. (…) I don’t like him, and I don’t hate him. And hey, if he gets beat up, I gave the country justice.

As for DMX, he seems to be enjoying the opportunity to hype the event with some trash talk about Zimmerman:

I am going to beat the living f**k out him … I am breaking every rule in boxing to make sure I f**k him right up.

If you're wondering how in hell ANYONE would agree to participate in this disgusting, exploitive trainwreck, the LA Times rather accurately describes DMX's decision as "another low in what's been a spectacular nosedive for (his) career." They go on to pose a number of rhetorical questions for the rapper, such as "Why?" and "Seriously, dude, why?" -- along with more serious points:

Has anyone on your team mentioned how much of a mockery you’re making of Martin’s death by engaging in this spectacle? Have you thought about the additional layer of grief this adds to Trayvon’s family and friends, considering this mess has unfolded on his birthday? How does this benefit you in any way other than financially? Where were you in the aftermath of Martin's shooting and during the trial, when your peers in the music industry were showing up to rallies and writing lyrics in protest?

The White House petition against the fight, titled "Celebrity Boxing Promoter Damon Feldman & George Zimmerman are attempting to promote and profit off of racial tensions in America," currently has over 14,000 signatures. It doesn't seem terribly likely that it will hit its goal of 100,000, but perhaps we the people can make our preferences known by NOT choosing to watch the fight via Internet pay-per-view, which is how it will be broadcast.

I don't even know what to say about this, except it's a gross spectacle and everyone involved should be ashamed of themselves. It'd be nice if the match ended up getting canceled, but failing that, I tend to agree with the idea floated by this Chelsea Lately writer:

They should send Floyd Mayweather to the ring and tell George Zimmerman it's DMX. He won't know the difference.

What do you think about George Zimmerman doing a celebrity boxing match?

Image via Flickr

I am an alcoholic. For years, alcohol was the first thing I thought about when I woke up in the morning. All day long, I obsessed over drinking: when could I start, did I have enough, how could I hide it. Every hour until that first drink was steeped in unease and self-hatred. Every hour past that first drink was focused on the drink after that. I lived completely in the past or the future, in regrets and anxiety. The present was increasingly intolerable and so I sought escape. It was a vicious cycle that went on and on and on.

You have probably had your fill of people using Philip Seymour Hoffman's tragic overdose as an excuse to talk about addiction. Forgive me for adding to the noise, but it's been hard for me to think of anything else lately. It's been hard to see the number of people condemning Hoffman for the "stupid, selfish" act that took his life and not feel painted with those same hurtful broad strokes.

I drank openly for many years, then I spent years hiding my drinking. I quit, and I relapsed. At my lowest points (it turns out that infamous rock bottom can be reached more than once), I thought of myself as a completely worthless human being. My drinking was wrapped in guilt and shame and self-loathing, and yet I did not stop. I felt utterly trapped by my addiction, soul-sick and exhausted to the core by the sheer effort of feeding into the same shiteous cycle day in and day out, but I did not stop.

Here is where I pause in order to tell you two things. One: I am sober and have been for 7 months and 15 days. Two: I believe -- strongly -- in personal accountability.

The day Philip Seymour Hoffman's death hit the news, I posted the following on Twitter: "Hoffman was clean for 23 years. God, that part gives me the shivers. Addiction has infinite patience."

Someone responded: "Don't anthropomorphize addiction. Man has infinite weakness, and infinite willpower. You choose which one wins."

I don't disagree with that point of view. My recovery does not involve a higher power. The person who got sober is me, and the person with the power to stay sober is also me.

However, these days I do think of my alcoholism as a presence that lurks in waiting. In my mind, it's not separate from me, nor is it a disease which bloomed, wholly unbidden, inside my body. It is a sort of shadow-self, an alternate reality with a liquid-thin line of separation from the healthy, happy life I have. At any point in my existence, I am one swallow from drowning.

Hoffman was reportedly clean and sober for 23 years before he relapsed in 2013. It doesn't make sense, does it? Why a man would once again choose to be a slave to the thing he knew would ruin everything good in his life. But addiction can only be managed, never cured. It's why people talk in terms of one day at a time, because the blunt truth, that as a recovering addict you will need to hold watch every day for the rest of your life, is too overwhelming.

Russell Brand published an amazing piece about addiction a while back, in which he wrote,

It is 10 years since I used drugs or drank alcohol and my life has improved immeasurably. I have a job, a house, a cat, good friendships, and generally a bright outlook. The price of this is constant vigilance because the disease of addiction is not rational.

The very definition of addiction is that it's the continued repetition of a behavior despite adverse consequences. It's not that addicts are completely helpless -- it's that they're caught up in a ruinous need that can become more powerful than their health, their relationships, their job, and their family. If you have no idea how deep and dark that hole can get, I am truly glad for you. But I think everyone is at least a little familiar with being helpless in the face of a bad habit. Everyone who's ever tried and failed to lose weight, for instance, or lost it only to gain it back, should have an idea.

Ultimately, Philip Seymour Hoffman was responsible for choices that led to his death. He could have pursued sobriety instead, and it is a terrible tragedy for his children and loved ones and those of us who so greatly admired his acting talent that he did not.

Some people will argue that Hoffman was selfish and deserved what he got. Some will say he was a victim. Personally, I think the road to recovery is hard enough without the moral assessment. Addicts are neither martyrs nor villains. We are, all of us, flawed, imperfect, occasionally in need of help -- and worth a moment of empathy, if nothing else.

Image via olivier-lafuteur/Flickr