STILL LOOKING FOR SOMEONE WITH A SALES BACKGROUND, or TRADER JOE'S: HOTTIE HAVEN)

Everything seemed to be going my way today. I got out of work early, got my proofread on (that is an example of why I'm a qualified proofreader), went out with my old co-workers, went to Trader Joe's, went to Barnes and Noble and am now watching The Royal Tenenbaums.

What I learned today:

• Trader Joe's is a magnet for attractive men. Whether patrons or employees, everywhere I looked, there they were. Bearded, clean-shaven, long-haired, short-haired, blue-eyed, brown-eyed, pale, not quite so pale, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. I didn't notice at first, but then as I stood in line (for about 20 minutes or so, with my strawberry yogurt and box of chocolate Mochi), I realized that the crowd was heavily freckled with cuties.
• Buying books makes me feel better about myself than buying clothes. I bought four books today: The Scream Queen's Survival Guide; Women Are Crazy, Men Are Stupid; Who's (oops) Whose Grammar Book Is This Anyway?; and When You Are Engulfed in Flames. (The latter three were on sale.)
• The Brooklyn Heights Urban Outfitters closes at 9 p.m. on Fridays.

I'm including this photo of Michael Cera for good measure and momentum's sake. It's relevant because I find him to be a cutie (you know, like the guys at Trader Joe's).

STILL ♥ MICHAEL CERA

A Scott Pilgrim poster in mind-blowing 3-D!

This past weekend I saw Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World (twice*), and while I loved it, part of me wished that it had been done in 3-D. Of the countless movies that have been released as of late in 3-D, this was not, though it seemed a more-than-prime candidate. The animations were designed to pop out at you, so it seemed almost unnatural for them not to literally pop out at you. I for one would have loved to see little magenta hearts floating out at the audience, or the Battle of the Bands amp monsters raging off the screen. Any of the fight scenes (which already looked awesome in 2-D) would have been pretty amazing in 3-D. So why the pass?

Back in February director Edgar Wright tweeted: "Breaking film news: In a groundbreaking release strategy, Scott Pilgrim Vs The World is to be released in 2D. Calm yourselves."

The tweet reeks of sarcasm, and it's easy to see where he's coming from; movies that have no reason to be in 3-D (not that any movie particularly has a reason to be in 3-D) are hitting theaters left and right. The mainstreaming of the gimmick, to state the obvious, has gotten quite out of control. For a while after the initial explosion in the '50s and then the subtle calming down of it, it was just CG movies, but then live-action movies started creeping in, and by 2009 a new 3-D movie was being released nearly every month, only half of which were pure CG. The number has nearly doubled to 23 for 2010, and so far 30 have been announced for next year. It’s an obvious ploy to eke out more money from moviegoers (four of the 12 movies of 2009 were also released in IMAX 3-D, and nine of the 23 of 2010 have or are slated to be).

Scott Pilgrim genuinely felt like a film that could have made it work. Did it need to be in 3-D? Of course not. Again, no movie needs to be in 3-D — Toy Story 3, for example, was great, but I was peeved to have shelled out $20 to see it not just in regular old 3-D, but in IMAX 3-D, and not be totally blown away. The same goes for pretty much every 3-D film I’ve seen in the past year. (I didn’t see Avatar.)

If every other big budget production under the sun wasn't in 3-D, would Wright have been so quick to dismiss the idea? To be honest, probably. He said in an interview with JoBlo that Universal never brought up converting Scott Pilgrim to 3-D, and while he conceded that there were things in the movie that would have worked in 3-D, didn’t express any desire to or regret that he wouldn’t see it that way. Still, were the former novelty not so omnipresent, allowing a 3-D Scott Pilgrim to stand out against a backdrop of two dimensions, he may have considered it.

*Which means I am responsible for the bulk of its ticket sales. Heyo!

Note: I also considered that Scott Pilgrim in 3-D may have upped its box office ante, but an article published on Slate has led me to think that may not be true.

♥ MICHAEL CERA

What with the extremely recent release premiere of Scott Pilgrim Vs. the World, I've been thinking (more than usual) about Michael Cera. Since becoming a "household name," the biggest criticism he's faced has been that he has been that he plays the same character — one that, it would seem, is fairly similar to his own real-life self (Cera himself is probably more charming) — over and over. To be fair, this is true — the biggest deviation he's taken was one of his roles in Youth in Revolt, as the debonnaire Frenchman Francois, and that was just him being a huge mustachioed creep.

Cera seems comfortable with this; he's even admitted to it. Back in December, New York Magazine ran a profile on him:

"Michael Cera plays two very different characters in Youth in Revolt," begins the article "That is approximately one more role than he has played in the entirety of his short, successful career. From his breakout part as George Michael on the groundbreaking sitcom Arrested Development to the films Superbad and Juno, the 21-year-old Canadian is a superstar of typecasting. Where most actors treat range like an investment strategy, Cera nestles in his comfort zone: muddle-minded, sweet, dweeby adolescents who ache for the love of a cool girl. And really, who would buy him as a cop or a boxer anyway?
"'It’s a real game people end up playing with their image,” says Cera from Toronto, where he’s spending the holidays with his family. “That’s really not what’s important to me. It’s just not. And I don’t know how to play that game or understand why people do. It’s just not as fun to me as getting to work with people that you really like.'"

courtesy of vanityfair.com

The fact that Cera keeps playing slight variations of himself has lent him to criticism, sure, but more than that it's lent him to an oddly justifiable celebrity crushworthiness. Teenage girls are forever being chastised for obsessing over actors and singers — famous people they've never met, about whom they know nothing, save for their hometowns, favorite colors, past romances, etc. etc.

However, it would appear that with Michael Cera what you see is what you get. You might wonder, am I getting the awkward lovelorn virgin from Superbad or the awkward lovelorn baby-daddy from Juno? Most likely you're getting Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist's Cera: Still awkward and lovelorn, but (probably) not a virgin and (probably) not a baby-daddy. Teenage girls (and I) can rest easy that meeting him would not shatter any expectations; who he is is just a movie theater or Netflix queue away.

His role as Scott Pilgrim is again pretty familiar territory, kind of a rehashing of his Nick and Norah character, but with superpowers, which automatically means it will be awesome.

OMG FOB!!!

While in the Union Square McDonald's last night, my friend Rachel and I noticed a pair of tweens (possibly teens; I have no concept of how old anyone is anymore, though, given the single-wire top-tier retainer on one, it seemed likely that they weren't in their 20s) sitting next to us becoming agitated. Following their glances and whispers, we realized they were staring at a short punk guy with a stroller and a Whole Foods bag. Rachel could see his face, and tried to quietly tell me who it was, but I couldn't understand her. I tried to get a look, but a woman was blocking my view, and moving in such a way that every time he moved, she continued to block my view. Finally he turned — and OMGZ IT WAS PETE WENTZ!

Wearing the same thing he wore last night

courtesy of BuzzNet

Apart from the t(w)eens, Rachel and me, and a couple people sitting on the other side of us, no one really seemed to notice or recognize him. He bought his kid a Happy Meal and went on his merry way.

DOPPELNAMERS

Several minutes ago I Googled my name, as I do occasionally, to see what comes up. One of the first results is the Twitter of a girl who is using my old handle. Funnily enough, several of her tweets, at first glance, and completely ignoring the general lack of attention to grammar, could belong to me ("god my mom is a cry baby", for example; she also tweets at Justin Bieber quite often, but also mentions her dad sometimes, one of many clues that this is in fact not my Twitter feed).

I'd really like to become friends with this Jess Goodwin of Martinsville, Illinois.

UPDATE: I noticed today, August 30, I noticed that I had misspelled "general." WHAT IS WRONG WITH ME?