This coming Sunday is the 63rd Annual Prime Time Emmy Awards. That time of year when we celebrate excellence in national primetime programming. Or do we?

Let's be completely honest here. Few of us watch these shows anymore, and with the advent of the DVR, if we do watch, we are likely to just record it and forward to the few awards we care about. Unless of course you are fortunate enough to have some gay friends who throw a fabulous Emmy bash, in which case I am seriously envious of you and can you please get me invited to their Oscar party?

Sadly, these days, most of America doesn't really care about the Emmys and if the care at all it's just about the red carpet fashion. Joan Rivers will be sharpening her claws and her tongue just for the occasion in preparation for her usual bawdy observations and low-humor quips. Thank goodness for Closed Caption! You don't actually have to listen to her.

But here's something that I'm really wondering about. While I'm sure that these awards are still very important to the actors, directors, screenwriters etc as well as the networks, do they actually have any influence whatsoever on the viewing audience? With the overabundance of channels and programs to watch, not to mention OnDemand and Netflix instant watch, does the general public put and stock into whether or not a show wins awards? I don't think so. I think people watch what they like and don't watch what doesn't interest them and if their show got an award - great! If some show they haven't the slightest curiosity in should sweep the Emmys it's not going to make them tune in. I think back when we had just a few stations and fewer diversions to entertain us on a Tuesday night people did care. Maybe not a huge amount, but it told them where the quality was and the network with the more awards was likely to have the better shows in the next Fall lineup.

What do you think? Do you feel Emmy awards have any influence over viewers and their choice of what to watch these days?

I admit, I love a bunch of YA shows like Pretty Little Liars, Switched at Birth, The Lying Game etc. And I've been seeing ads for all the new Fall shows coming on. It occurred to me that almost all of the female leads in just about all of these shows have a butt-load of money. Ok, they're parents do, but it amounts to the same thing.

They wear expensive clothes, have their own cars at 16, naturally have cell phones and laptops. That goes without saying. But the clothes! And the accessories! Unless they're using really good knock-offs, some of these teens are sporting bags that cost more than I earn in a month!

It's pretty sad when a woman in her 30s is watching a show about a 16 year-old and envying her enormous walk-in closet full of designer clothes, shoes and accessories that's bigger than my bathroom. Yeah, ok, it's fiction, I get it, but still. The people writing these books that the shows are based off of, the people buying and reading these books, and the execs deciding to buy the rights to these books and make them into shows obviously think this is a reasonable portrayal.

And on one show, a parent was cavalierly going to write his son a check for up to $1,000 for settling a poker debt! Again! Even though he was perturbed that this was a recurring problem, he was still quick to pull out the checkbook and offer up the money. When he started quoting figures up around three grand then he got really angry. And, same show, the parents called in the two daughters sick to school to go out shopping for cars for their 16th birthday. Yeah, because they don't sell cars on weekends.

But even the shows that try and come off as more mainstream, I just keep looking at the way these girls dress and they are almost always in dresses or skirts and humongous heels and super decked out. When I was in high school - which wasn't all that long ago - if you got dolled up like that you were trying too hard to impress someone. What happened to jeans and hoodies? Apparently, none of these families have heard of Old Navy.

And they can all go out any time of the day and night. Yeah, I know, it would screw up the plot line otherwise. I guess part of me is jealous. I want to go back to being 16 with a new sports car, a wardrobe that cost more than the yearly income of Average American Worker, and is so vast I almost never have to wear the same thing twice. I want to wear Mac and other designer make-up when I'm still a kid instead of Cover Girl and Maybelline and whatever's on sale at CVS. I want designer shoes and boots to coordinate with each and every outfit, with matching purses. None of this one purse in the Fall for Back to School and you use it until it wear out crap. Oh wait! I still do that.

So, yesterday's post about the People of Walmart has led me to the inevitable follow up: Low Rise Jeans: A Clueless Trend or Fashion's Biggest Joke?

Seriously people, we've all heard the 'crack kills' jokes - and seen them too, yet we support an industry that sells a style of jean specifically designed to leave your butt crack hanging out. I'm sorry, but I don't care who you are - that is NOT a good look. I doesn't matter if you want to show off your tramp stamp or flaunt your skeletal figure. Butt Crack = Bad Look. Period. Every time.

And what's worse is that they don't restrict such revealing styles just to those who have tiny figures that you could get by with having to deal with a certain amount of butt crack - if forced. Oh no! They make them in all sizes! Including plus size and children's.

Give me fricking break! We live in a society riddled with pedophiles and parents go out shopping for their 6 year-olds and are lucky if they can find a normal pair of jeans. Nope, they are all low rise so their tiny little bodies are all dressed up sexy like a grown woman and their teeny little but cracks are hanging out every time the sit down or bend. Nice. Really nice. I know I've heard my friends with kids complain about this for the past couple of years. Parents are forced to buy them because there is no alternative for jeans out there. The only other choice is to put them in leggings every day, which might not be bad in some climates, but here in New England, you want to be able to put them in jeans in the winter months.

And what about those poor plus size women? Come on jean companies! Get a clue! You can make stylish jeans for women who wear bigger than a size 8 without making them look like they are wearing ill fitting pants or granny jeans. If some woman is wearing a size 28 jean, she wants it to come up around her waist - not on her hips. No large woman wants her pants to stop at her hips (unless she's completely clueless - please refer to yesterday's blog post about People of Walmart).

But even skinny women, when they sit down or bend over, 99% of the time, you're seeing stuff you don't want to see (and if you want to see that - please go find another blog to haunt, we don't go in for that sick crap here).

But it's the consumer that's ultimately to blame. People keep buying them, so the industry thinks we want them, so that's what they keep making. So knock it off already!

You often hear people speak of the "Golden Era" of Hollywood. That time in history when studios competed against one another for supremacy; to be the yardstick by which all other movie studios were measured. When stars were truly stars; paragons of style, elegance and class adored and admired by millions of fans all over the world.

Studios created the stars then. They were factories of illusion and magic, and while there were some definite disadvantages to the old studio system, when we look back at it all you can't help but think that some of their ways had their merit. They controlled the publicity, so all you heard were good things, upbeat and happy things. Sure, there was a lot of denial and even out right lies, but it wasn't all rehab and divorce and affairs and scandals. Celebrities were expected to keep up appearances if they wanted to keep their contracts. No rowdy underage partying til all hours of the morning and rumors of substance abuse, etc. Basically, no acting like a spoiled little princess that the world revolves around who can say and do as she pleases and the rest of the world just has to cope with it, and when you do finally have to pay the piper you blame your parents. (*ahem* I'm sure you can think of more than one disastrous diva who fits that bill).

Nope - if you wanted to be a star in Hollywood, you had to tow the line. Oh sure, if you were really big you could get away with a certain amount of foolishness, and of course all homosexuals were kept securely in their closets, but you had to answer to someone (actually a lot of someones) if you didn't behave. Call me old fashioned but I like that concept.

Of course, I suppose some will say 'oh but they're real people they should be able to show their real emotions and behave like normal people....' Excuse me?! Are you telling me Lindsay Lohan behaves like normal people? Hardly! No, they think they can act anyway they want because they're famous. If they were just normal everyday people with 9 to 5 jobs, or full time school, they would not behave like they do. And of course, they do have real emotions etc, etc. but when they are out somewhere at a function or event, they are working and need to handle themselves professionally. And even when they go out to a nightclub or a restaurant, they trade on their reputations. It's not outrageous to expect a certain level of behavior.

Though, yes, there are some who do handle themselves quite well, I don't mean to imply that all Hollywood is out of control. But even still, it's not the same. There's no real glamor. That true star quality is lost. We'll never have another Cary Grant, another Grace Kelly, another Clark Gable or Tyrone Power, another Elizabeth Taylor or Ingrid Bergman. Gone are the Bette Davis' and Jimmy Stewart's of the silver screen. Sure, we have our Tom Hanks. How can you knock him? But as wonderful as he is and as fabulous as his accomplishments have been, he just isn't quite up to that caliber, though possibly the closest our generation might have. Alright, George Clooney comes damn close to the style and charisma, though it did take him most of his career to achieve it (I remember him in a comedy show called ER even before he was on Roseanne!). I'll give you that he comes about as close as anyone I can think of to channeling that old Hollywood glamor.

And yes, we have lots of lovely actresses and greatly talented ones too. But I'm sorry, I like Julia Roberts, but she's no Ingrid Bergman. Though I will say I think Halle Berry is quite possibly one of the most naturally beautiful women in the entire world. Close cropped hair, not a stich of makeup and in jeans and a t-shirt and the woman is still breath-taking. There's a certain charm, a grace, an indescribable quality that's been lost somewhere along the way and I think it's due in part to losing the mystery of what makes a star a star. They are all so intent on showing you how regular and normal they are (well most of them). They don't care about being seen without makeup, dressed in sloppy clothes with their hair not done. Today's stars don't want there to be any illusion. And while I can see their side, I can't help the feeling that it's a shame. The believing that they were somehow above the everyday people, while, yes, being snotty and presumptuous, also added to the magic. It was part of the dream. If becoming a movie star or a rock star or whatever is looked at as no more different or special than becoming a dentist or a lawyer (simply something you have to train for and get a good break on to be successful), then where's the dream? What's happened to the magic?

(Now, don't get confused, if you are like some people I know who just breeze through, you might think I am contradicting myself, saying oh they think they don't have to answer to anyone etc, and then saying oh remember when they seemed above us all, but you have to really read and comprehend the full substance of those paragraphs. There IS a difference.)

And there, in large part I think, lies part of the trouble with Hollywood today. Where's the magic? Stop remaking old movies. Stop going for the quick, cheap laugh. Worry about crafting quality movies with valuable stories. I don't mean valuable in the sense of they all have to have a moral etc. I mean valuable in the sense that they are worth telling and worth telling beautifully. I know not as many people are willing to pay full price for a theater ticket any more so they cater to certain types of audiences they think will pay the price of admission. They don't realize how short sighted that is. Movies have longevity and can continue to make money for years to come. It's worth it to invest your money in a good story, a quality script, a first rate cast. And a NEW story. Believe me, there ARE new stories to be told. We are not all out of stories and ideas in this world.

Oh, Hollywood, Hollywood! Won't you restore and revive yourself? Try and remember what once made you so great. You were once the most magical place on earth, not Disney! Rekindle that magic. Expect your stars to be stars! Expect them to behave, because when they are out and about, they are representing your industry - like it or not. Don't coddle those who throw temper tantrums and diva fits. There are plenty of fish in the sea. Remember you were once the World's guide to all things fashionable. Show the World that it is the fashion to be elegant, classy, sophisticated - and responsible. It is no longer in fashion to be drunken, drugged, cheap and out of control.

And reign in your directors and producers. Raise that bar back up where it belongs before it falls on the floor! Demand quality films! No more easy way out by half ass re-hashings of old movies and old tv shows to make a quick buck. Reclaim your dignity! You can do it! I think you'd be very surprised how many people out there would just love for you to do so.

(PS - for those who don't know: Pic 1: Ava Gardner, Pic 2: Gregory Peck and Audrey Hepburn, Pic 3: Cary Grant and Ingrid Bergman, Pic 4: Elizabeth Taylor and Robert Taylor [no relation])

I've been watching PR since the beginning. Even though there have been a few season's I swore I wouldn't go back (*ahem* Gretchen!), but here I am again, watching the designers strut their stuff. What can I say, I just adore Tim Gunn.

But as annoying as it is every season that the judges seem to like people who are jerks that don't do as nearly as good of work as some of the other designers, what irritates me the most is Heidi's wardrobe. Hello? Pot calling the kettle black!

Here we have a perfect example. This is what Heidi wore for the judging segment of Project Runway Season 9, episode 2 this past week. Anyone else see something wrong here? Uh yeah! What the hell is with the reverse darts on the shoulders? They're ridiculous. You look like an idiot Heidi! But what really burns me is that if any of the designers had sent a dress like that down the runway not only would Heidi rake them over the coals for it, but you know Nina would tear them a new one over it and Michael would have some cute little quip that would be sound-bited all over the net the next day.

So, it begs the question... Why the hell is she wearing it?!?!? I've read a lot of comments over the years that allegedly Heidi wears clothing on the show from past contestants to try and help them. Really? Is this helping anybody? Who is this benefiting? And if that's the case, a disclaimer of some kind needs to be flashed on the screen absolving her of bad wardrobe choices.

For those of you who don't watch PR, don't think I'm jumping all over poor Heidi for one bad dress. This is a nasty habit. I wish that rotten cat-bitch hadn't destroyed all my dvds (read my book if that doesn't make sense) so I could go back through the seasons and find examples of other disasters. I do remember the judges bashing the hell out of a contestant for stretch pants on one episode and on the very next episode, isn't Heidi wearing stretch pants! My phone was ringing off the hook with my BFFs calling to say 'can you believe the nerve?'. And a similar thing happened once with someone using sequins or something similar on an outfit (not because they used too much but because they used them at all and it was 'dated') and sure enough an episode or two later, out comes Heidi with a shirt with shiny-glittery stuff all over it.

The hypocrisy is sometimes the funniest part of the show. I love the styling critiques they give. Nina Garcia hasn't changed anything in all the seasons of PR and yet she constantly talks about looking 'current'. Apparently Ms. Garcia thinks she is either above such things or her look is so classic it doesn't need updating.

And on a general note - is anyone else sick of hearing the word 'youthful'? I'm trying to figure out if they think fashion is only for 20-somethings or if fashionistas are just all in denial of their real age.

Oh, Tim, Tim. If only they would listen to you. You handle it all with such class. Hmmmm. Class...... Maybe that's what's needed. A little Tim Gunn training lol. At least if they didn't like something they wouldn't be so bitchy about it.

But back to my original thought. Heidi, I love you, hun, but in the words of Tim, you too often are not Making it Work. You know what they say about good intentions. Worry more about looking like a fool and a hypocrite and less about wearing something for a former contestant. Going by your choice last week, I'm sorry, but you're out.