At the premiere of In The Land of Blood and Honey, Jolie told Daily Caller senior video reporter Nicholas Ballasy that she is “disappointed” in “a few things.”

When asked about a 2009 interview where she expressed doubt that Obama would be elected to another four years in the White House — an interview Jolie appears to discredit by asking the reporter whether he read it in Us Weekly — Jolie responded that there are “many, many things I think have gone in a wonderful direction, and there are a few things I am disappointed in. And I don’t feel like tonight is the night to clarify, but there are many wonderful things that have moved forward and of course some other things that are very frustrating.”

And, as it turns out, there is indeed a report on Us Weekly‘s website titled “Exclusive: Angelina Jolie Not a Fan of Obama,” from November of 2009. It quotes an anonymous source “close” to Jolie who says she “hates” Obama and “thinks Obama is really a socialist in disguise.” It doesn’t, however, include anything about Jolie’s thoughts regarding a second term for Obama, at least not in the online version.

Pitt, meanwhile, told the site that he remains a fan of Obama. “Yes,” he responded, when asked about this “2009 report” and his support for the President, “I have been and remain so.”

RELATED: Campaign Secrets: Mitt Romney Peels The Cheese Off His Pizza, Rick Perry Prefers Jen Aniston To Angelina Jolie

The actor declined to share which issues he and the President agree on. Have a look, courtesy of The Daily Caller:

h/t The Daily Caller

As Gutfeld noted, there are about 3,000 more lesbian couples than gay couples in Massachusetts, and almost twice as many in other states with similar laws. “As a guy, I’ve got to tell you– it’s not surprising,” noted panelist Charles Payne. The sentiment appeared to be shared by all the males on the panel, who then began to craft ways to escape getting married if being part of a gay couple in New York. “I’d immediately start making excuses to move to a place without gay marriage,” suggested Dan Soder, to which Gutfeld then built upon– the excuse can be “I’m going to that state to change the law, and then when that law is changed, I’ll go to another state.” When all states fail, the panel concluded, there will always be Utah.

The lone female voice on the panel, Kayleigh McEneny, also concurred with the obviousness of the statistics, but for different reasons. “I’ll have to pay someone to get down on one knee,” she lamented, noting that it’s near impossible for her to get dates, much less proposals. “You always hear this with the hot chicks,” Gutfeld argued, while Soder added that it’s the girls who say “I can never get a date” that say “I love you like a brother” when you ask them on a date.” Bill Schulz agreed vehemently with that comment, and then changed the subject to one particularly famous bachelor– “you know who really is sweating bullets right now is Brad Pitt.”

During the Halftime Report, Andy Levy was quick to call Schulz a “hack” for stealing a tweet he made the night of New York’s gay marriage bill passing, and added an apparently obvious possibility that no one brought up before for the lopsided numbers: “maybe there are just more lesbians– did anyone think of that?”

The discussion and subsequent Halftime Report talk via Fox News below:

Why is Bogart so special? “How did an actor who was limited to embodying the particular stresses of America in depression and war become inimitable—and immortal?” asks Alyssa Rosenberg at The Atlantic. Maybe “the kind of masculinity Bogart represents is simply unreproducible”? But why is that? Kanfer’s book doesn’t resolve this “enigma of moviegoing,” and leaves me still to wonder “why do we continue to need Humphrey Bogart?”

He gave all of himself: “Now we have fine leading men such as George Clooney and Brad Pitt but there’s something generic about them, no wounds, no despising death in the manner of Bogie in Casablanca,” says Henry Allen in The Wall Street Journal. We’ve seen stars rise up in the 50 years since, but “the post-Bogart guys have so little personal identity that stage impressionists can’t even imitate them.” Even if Bogart fell prey to some vices in his later years, “his best side still drives American psyches.”

He hit at the right time: “Bogart was the unlikeliest of movie stars,” says Saul Austerlitz in The Boston Globe. “As Kanfer notes, Bogart was the right star for the right moment” who “came to serve as the ideal hero for the era of noir: hard-bitten, wise to the world’s evils, but with a sneaky sense of justice and moral order.” Bogart set the tone for a type of character, and actor, we often see today. “He is every bit as diffident and as gruff as any 2010 antihero, and yet his prickly dignity marks him as a timeless American icon.”

At the root of the problem lay the identity of the people of Sudan, a country in which years of religious tension have torn the country apart, to the point where many celebrity activists are backing the creation of a new, Christian country in the south of Sudan, in addition to US intervention to stop the atrocities against Christians in the Darfur region of Sudan. For O’Reilly, it was difficult to see the problem with celebrity intervention if it was helping shed light on a major global issue for the better. But to Scheuer, creating a new Christian state out of Muslim land was precisely the kind of intervention that fueled Bin Laden’s propaganda. Bin Laden, he argued, “has predicted that the United States will always step in and take land from the Islamic  world, especially if that land has any potential for producing oil.” Unfortunately, the southern half of Sudan hosts most of its oil reserves.

Still, O’Reilly saw the creation of a country “where [Darfur] refugees could go” as a positive thing, as it would diffuse tension by dividing the opposing factions. Scheuer saw this as instigation to push Darfur itself to be a nation, it being a western territory that would not be involved in the initial division, and used other examples of American intervention– notably the creation of East Timor and the power of Shia Muslims in Iraq– as examples of acts that have led to increased hostility from Al Qaeda.

“So, do we stand on the sidelines?” asked O’Reilly in response, suggesting that the alternative to shedding light on the problems in Sudan was keeping silent and, as such, becoming accomplices to the atrocities. Scheuer saw no problem with that. “We absolutely stand on the sidelines,” he replied, taking a detour to point out abortion as a similar atrocity that celebrities “support.” O’Reilly, eyebrow raised, replied dryly, “you’re talking about abortion,” and later noted that he saw the situation differently.

It may not be a first, but it is certainly rare to see Bill O’Reilly, longtime nemesis to more liberal celebrities like George Clooney, take up his side– more fodder for those that have begun to see O’Reilly, in his role as Fox News elder stateman, as the network’s moderate voice of commentary. The debate from last night’s program below:

Or, in juicy Hollywood terms, the electorate is Brad Pitt, the GOP is Angelina Jolie, and the Democratic Party is Jennifer Aniston. But not even Jennifer Aniston:

So what can a party whose idea of star power is Al Franken and a Hollywood fundraiser hosted by Laurie David do to match a party whose ruthless insight is “control the cheerleader, control the world”?

Junod offers the Democrats his own advice, telling no-drama Obama to make Hillary Clinton his 2012 running mate and “have a wall-banging affair with her.”

Ridiculous scandal aside, what point is Junod really trying to make here? Is “a party led by a man who clearly thinks too much before he speaks” doomed to lose to “a party led by a semi-sexy woman who will say anything”? Perhaps, but less so when you consider that the actual leaders of the GOP — RNC Chairman Michael Steele, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, and House Minority Leader John Boehner — are either too goofy, too geriatric, or too neon to qualify as traditionally sexy. Meanwhile, his two primary examples, O’Donnell and Palin, aren’t currently elected officials, a fact that will likely remain true on November 3rd. To fairly qualify them as “entertainment,” as Junod does, would be to compare them to Rachel Maddow, Oprah Winfrey (who campaigned for Obama), Ellen DeGeneres, and Arianna Huffington, all of whom can claim their own brands of attraction.

Besides, Tea Party fervor began independently of O’Donnell and won’t disappear if she loses in November, especially if Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh (both of whom are more influential than O’Donnell) continue to keep conservatives…hot, so to speak.

After playing some very devastating clips from NBC’s 2005 coverage of Hurricane Katrina including a clip of Aaron Broussard, president of Jefferson Parish, weeping on Meet the Press, begging Tim Russert for help. BriWi reflected on the disparity between the treatment of the residents of NOLA and the NBC staff that went down there to cover it:

The children and relatives of the people at this table, I’m going to go ahead and guess would not have gone a week without water or food because their dads, their dads’ companies would have found a way as NBC news did to get us supplies in the central business district. they found us in the parking lot of a used car dealer and made sure we had something to drink. What’s the difference? Why didn’t it matter to someone? Why wasn’t someone able to get supplies and get those folks out?

That’s harsh assessment, one that would have been harsher and perhaps more helpful if more people had focused on it at the time, but nevertheless, here’s guest Wendell Peirce‘s measured response:

I think the thing you have to remember is that we have to understand that the disaster lifted the veil of issues of race, of issues of class, not only in this city but in the country. If we are to move past it and truly be a part of this wonderful recovery that we’re feeling, we can’t looked at it through rose colored glasses. there’s not an indictment of one person. it’s an indictment of us all.

Later BriWi asked historian Douglas Brinkley “what happened to that national conversation we were all supposed to have about what was exposed by Katrina?” Brinkley says we “got amnesia” and “forget quickly.” One might suggest the country would be less apt to get “amnesia” and “forget” if powerful media folks like NBC and it’s uber popular anchors were more apt to shine a consistent light on the problem in the intervening years between big anniversaries. One might also suggest that we are in fact embroiled in a national conversation about race, it just simply does not look like what anyone imagined or hoped it would five years ago.

Meanwhile, here’s a happier story involving Brad Pitt, who has been very active in the rebuilding of the Lower Ninth Ward. Perhaps most interesting about the Make It Right housing he has helped build in NOLA is that they are green, Pitt says it is now “the greenest neighborhood in the world.” This means, among other things, that the houses themselves produce more energy than they consume. Says Pitt: “Families were getting bills that were $8, $12, processing fees it tell them they didn’t owe anything for utilities. There’s no reason to build any other way. I think this place is a template for the future.” It’s truly amazing to think the Ninth Ward could be a template for anything positive five years after being devastated by Katrina. Both segments below. I think they’re worth your time.

Post-Katrina Conversation

Brad Pitt

Did you just laugh out loud? The idea that one is able to erase personal information for the Internet, let alone one of its most used sites, does seem laughable but nevertheless they are apparently giving it a shot. From the story:

“The Guild has a contract with IMDb to provide credits information and does not release information on age,” Neal Sacharow, a spokesperson for the WGA, told TheWrap. “We have raised our concerns with IMDb about its listing of ages.”

Representatives from Hollywood guilds including the Screen Actors Guild have reached out to the site to see about taking down the birth dates of people who are not movie stars like Angelina Jolie or Leonardo DiCaprio, according to an individual knowledgeable about the talks. (A spokeswoman for SAG declined to comment.)

The guilds argue that not just writers and actors, but also below-the-line workers as they crest 40 face fewer job opportunities in a business that tends to prefer 25 year olds. Listing their ages publicly is exacerbating the situation, they say.

Apparently the IMDB is very touchy about making any changes, even correct ones, which is understandably frustrating for people interested in making their first Google result accurate. Another problem: Hollywood doesn’t like old people. But I am going to hazard a guess that IMDB has become such a necessary resource to just about everyone (when was the last time you watched anything without referring to it?) that removing information would result in an uproar and merely be an invitation for someone to launch a competing site.

It’s an unavoidable media query: At what level of fame does a celebrity couple’s breakup become legitimately newsworthy? Ever?

The questionable report provides a few details about the time frame of the agreement, as well as teasing an imminent announcement from the stars:

The agreement gives them joint custody of the kids – but all six will actually live full-time with their mum.

Preparations for a split began in early December when “Brangelina” visited a top Los Angeles divorce firm to begin thrashing out the deal.

An announcement of their separation is expected to be made soon – ending months of speculation that the five-year relationship is on the rocks.

A source told the News of the World: “The document was signed in early January. Both Brad and Angelina had signed it.

To be sure, if we were to listen every time the tabloids said this pair was irrevocably broken, there would have been days worth of tears prior to this weekend’s heart-wrenching announcement, and yet now feels about right. They’ve had half of a solid decade together and haven’t sparked the interest they used to, with both stars softening as they age and in their role as parents. But it does beg the question, if not now then when the couple really does break up, how will the mainstream media justify its coverage?

Doubtlessly there will be coverage. Perez’s phone will be ringing off the hook as the cable networks scramble to book celebrity “experts” (some will settle for Julia Allison) and for a few days, we’ll grapple together, as a nation, with the loss of the Brangelina touchstone of romance. At this point, the speculation is a tad premature — the networks can’t cite News of the World — but at first sight of a confirmation it will be off to the races.

Classier joints, like the the New York Times, will carefully sculpt think-piece articles about the Larger Cultural Significance of Brad and Angelina, or maybe even on the celebrity reporting surrounding the couple. The celebrity weeklies, meanwhile, are already scrambling for their new covers, either confirming or denying the split.

Sure to frustrate many serious news consumers, it’s only a matter of time. So brace yourselves, because in a time of war, economic crises and natural disaster, this is still bound to rule a news cycle. Or two.

UPDATE: Mediaite editor-at-large Rachel Sklar had an insightful reaction to these questions, recalling an easily applicable media precedent to Brad and Angelina’s break up — Brad Pitt’s own divorce from Jennifer Aniston. Perhaps most memorable from that blast of celebrity coverage was Kent Brownridge of Wenner Media, publisher of US Weekly saying that “for a celebrity weekly, this is our tsunami.”

As the NFL playoffs come down to the final four teams, the national sports media begins to ponder the potential matchups – and the potential storylines – of Super Bowl XLIV.  What games would provide the most drama? What combination of teams, cities, and personalities would make for the most compelling television?  What games would be fun to watch? For the NFL, at least this year, there is no wrong answer to these questions.

Regardless of the outcomes of the two playoff games this weekend, the Super Bowl will have plenty of compelling story lines. Mediaite presents a four part series where we tell you who’s left in the NFL playoffs, why they matter, and what the media will not stop talking about if they earn a trip to the big game (part one can be found here). Now, we take a look at the New Orleans Saints.

The New Orleans Saints (regular season record: 13-3)

What You Need To Know: The Saints have had very little success since they were established in 1967. In fact, one could argue that they’ve had no success. They are one of five teams to have never played in a Super Bowl, and things have been so bad in the past that fans have worn paper bags over their heads. Then along came Drew Brees. Now, nobody is ashamed to wear the black and gold, and that includes Brad Pitt.

Who Matters: Drew Brees, quarterback of the Saints and media-appointed savior of post-Katrina New Orleans. Reggie Bush, the running back who will (maybe) propose to girlfriend Kim Kardashian if the Saints win the Super Bowl. Jeremy Shockey, the most widely reviled player on an otherwise likable team. The SuperDome, which has gone from being a symbol of despair to the best home field advantage in sports.

The Potential Angle(s): Katrina. The team was a symbol of hope after the hurricane, and that’s when they were still losers. And as much as the public would get sick of a profile on every single person that was: a) effected by the hurricane, and b) cheers for the Saints, most would agree that a Super Bowl victory for the people of New Orleans would be pretty awesome.

If They Win, The Media Would Love To See Them Play: Peyton Manning and the Indianapolis Colts. Peyton’s dad, Archie Manning, is the greatest Saints player of all time (which is kind of like being the greatest Jamaican bobsledder of all time, but still), and the Mannings are an institution in Louisiana. The Colts, being one of the most successful teams of the decade, would also provide the perfect foil to the Saints’ historic futility.

If They Win, The Funnest Super Bowl To Watch Would Be: Peyton Manning and the Indianapolis Colts. If you find yourself in the unfortunate, but statistically likely, position of not having your favorite team in the Super Bowl (or not having a favorite team at all!), then this is the matchup for you. The Colts have won before. The Saints haven’t. Watching perennial underdog Drew Brees try to outduel the most endorsed athlete in sports, and win one for the people of New Orleans, would be the best kind of drama.

Next, we’ll preview the Indianapolis Colts. And, if you want to instantly grow hair on your chest, check out Drew Brees’ pregame warmup ritual below:

As we head into awards season — and what has already been a triumphant outing for the much-nominated Basterds — Mediaite asked Eli to reflect on the last decade and the sweat, tears and, yes, blood it took to get here. Luckily for us, he was as forthcoming with his story as the Bear Jew is with his bat — and shared all the gory details.

ELI ROTH: My Decade

The nineties, while fun and wild at times, were spent in film school, then working on various film sets from 5:30 in the morning until 11:00 at night getting coffee or standing out in the freezing cold asking drug addicts in Tompkins Square Park to kindly keep their voice down.  In short, they sucked, by 1999 I had moved to Los Angeles and finally got my first directing break, co-writing, directing, producing and voicing a series of animated shorts with my friend Noah Belson called “Chowdaheads.”  The shorts were to air on WCW Wrestling’s #1 rated show “Monday Nitro,” but the weekend before they were scheduled to air the CEO got fired, and the shorts were put on hold.  I had put every waking minute of my life into these shorts, and now they were just sitting on a shelf because of a regime change.  I was told to “sit tight” and “hang in there,” but by the end of 1999 it was clear nothing was going to happen with them.  It was time to move on.

Then, in January of 2000, the phone rang. On the other end was an unmistakable Midwestern twang I instantly recognized.

“Eli, man?  David Lynch.  How ya doin’, bud?”

I knew David from a research project I had done for him years ago when I was working for a theater producer in New York City.  I had written to David after I moved to Los Angeles, but had never heard  back from him.  I knew he was busy with his new TV pilot, “Mulholland Drive,” but that was about it.  I had sent him a holiday card just to keep in touch, and much to my surprise, he called.  David wanted to talk to me about his new website, DavidLynch.com, and asked if I’d help him organize some ideas.  I went over to his house and had a “cup of Joe” and we chatted about the Internet.  David told me about his frustrations with the television networks, and how he wanted to film ideas for the Internet because it gave him total freedom.  He was also going to charge for his ideas, which was very revolutionary at the time.  People were not used to paying anything outside what they paid their service provider, but he argued that unless he charged he’d go bankrupt, and if the fans were getting good material they’d be okay with a monthly fee that was basically the price of one lunch.  David began spouting out these ideas, and I just started writing them down. 

And that’s how it began.  Suddenly, I was producing shorts with him for DavidLynch.com.  We had a blast. I was so nervous, but with David you could do no wrong.  He was so nice and encouraging about everything, and he loved the “happy accident.”  David taught me to focus on what’s in front of the lens, not to fixate on what’s in your head, for if you’re too trapped in your own head you might miss something magical that’s right there under your nose.  David wanted to shoot a music video for his band Blue Bob, for the song “Thank you, Judge” (which is available on DavidLynch.com)  We found a house in the valley and courtroom to film in, and he cast Naomi Watts as the ex-wife who gets everything.  The day before shooting,  David threw out that I was going to play Naomi’s cheesy new boyfriend, which we all agreed was perfect typecasting.  So for the final shot, I put on a suit and sunglasses and held a cheap box of chocolates in one arm and Naomi in the other, smiling and waving to the camera.

There are endless stories about working with David, and I got to sit with him and transfer “Eraserhead” onto hi-def, which was a treat.  David doesn’t do director’s commentaries, but I got to listen to him tell a few stories here and there, so it was like having a private commentary.   One day Marlon Brando came over to discuss filming a “tea party” in drag, but that never materialized.  It was as surreal as you could imagine, and after we said we wished we had filmed just that encounter since it was just so bizarre to watch Brando drink Snapple, eat a tomato, and talk about how he must have “very real breasts” for the segment.  I just listened and absorbed everything I could. I spent about four months with David filming these various shorts, all the while taking time to go to meetings with Noah at various networks to try and resurrect “Chowdaheads” as a half hour animated series.  The whole show was done in our Boston accents, so we were pitching it as “King of the Hill” but set in Massachusetts.

The closest we came was at MTV in February 2000, but were ultimately told that they were no longer doing animated shows.  We couldn’t understand – “Beavis and Butthead” was such a huge hit and we felt like we had the next one, but they said they were now only doing this new thing called “reality” programming.  Animation, at least for them, was dead.  But thankfully there was this new craze flush with cash: the Internet.  Our agents set us up at a new site called Z.com that had millions of dollars from Wall Street investors.  The CEO loved “Chowdaheads” and wanted to continue it as a web series, but Noah and I said we would let them have it if they made our other show first – a stop-motion series called “The Rotten Fruit.”

“The Rotten Fruit” was a “Davey and Goliath”-type idea that Noah and I dreamed up about a band of foul mouthed British hooligan fruit that looked cute and adorable but did horrible, violent, deviant things.  The idea was so bizarre that we actually went to World Art Supply and built the characters out of clay, then made a shoebox diorama to set them up in.  We drove around the diorama in the back of my 1984 Saab to meetings, often bringing execs out to the parking lot where we’d dance around the figures and do the voices.  This seemed really, really funny to us.  Amazingly, Z.com went for it, and gave us $40,000 to make a pilot.  This enabled me to hire additional animators and builders (I was one of the main animators even though I hadn’t done stop motion since I was twelve) and spend money on cameras and a killer sound mix.  It was my biggest directing job to date, and in April of 2000 I spent 3 weeks in my friend Roy’s garage animating the pilot episode with an animator I had worked with on “Chowdaheads” named David Candelaria.  “Chowadheads” was supposed to air on TNT, so we even though it never aired we had to tone it way down from the original idea, which was a series called “Massholes.”  The internet brought us new freedom, the freedom to use any word we wanted.  Or so we thought.

Over the decade I kept a fairly detailed journal, so in an effort to not romanticize things or rewrite history, here are a few excepts of my life over the last ten years.  I removed or changed the names of studio execs I fought with and girls I dated to spare them the embarrassment.

>>>NEXT: Rotten Fruit in the Snake Pit
(Click here to see a photogallery and here to print.)

Star Magazine running a misleading cover? Say it ain’t so! The jury is out on whether Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie truly had “the fight to end all fights,” but Star definitely ran a misleading cover story on their fight or alleged fight.

Gossip Cop has the deets:

The picture (above [left]) of Pitt looking pensive was taken while the actor was promoting “Inglourious Basterds” two months before — on September 18 — at the San Sebastian Film Festival in Spain.

But the Star did capture Jolie crying after the fight, right?

No.

The photo of a sobbing Jolie was taken on June 20, 2003 — SIX YEARS AGO — when the Oscar-winning actress, a Goodwill Ambassador for the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, was moved to tears during a World Refugee Day ceremony in Washington, DC.

SIX YEARS AGO! And this from the esteemed magazine that said that Britney Spears was pregnant and that Leonardo DiCaprio is getting fat from eating cupcakes. The knaves.

(via Gossip Cop)

Get this: Angelina Jolie thinks Barack Obama is a “socialist in disguise.” This is according to an anonymous source, who provided many dubious but extremely spicy quotes to Us Weekly. She also “hates him.”

This raises several important questions: Does this doom Obama’s chances in 2012? Will this tear her and Brad [Pitt] apart? And how does Angelina Jolie compare to Megan Fox, anyway?

From Us Weekly:

Barack Obama does not have Angelina Jolie’s seal of approval.
“She hates him,” a source close to the U.N. goodwill ambassador, 34, tells the new issue of Us Weekly (on newsstands now).

See Angelina Jolie’s early modeling shots!

“She’s into education and rehabilitation and thinks Obama is all about welfare and handouts. She thinks Obama is really a socialist in disguise,” adds the source.

Fortunately, the source said that despite her political disagreements with Brad Pitt, who is a strong Obama supporter, this will not tear them apart. The source did not address whether Jolie’s opinion would cause Obama to lose re-election in 2012 — be prepared for an op-ed on that topic somewhere.

It’s easy to mock tabloids for their paper-thin reliance on anonymous sources. But we’re going to do it anyway: Us Weekly‘s reliance on one anonymous source is laughably paper-thin.

But the more interesting takeaway here — the “media angle,” if Mediaite commenters like Magister are to be appeased — is that in today’s hyperpolarized, relentlessly political climate, a story about a celebrity’s misgivings about Obama is considered juicy tabloid fodder. Has Us Weekly ever run a story that sounded more like Drudge-bait, at least in recent memory? Even if it is interspersed with links to photos of the Jolie-Pitt kids and slideshows comparing Angelina Jolie to Megan Fox.

Related: About 800 Pairs of Megan Fox’s Boobs

(h/t a tips line email titled “this will get people reading your site.”)

You won’t believe this: it has only been one year since the live action stars of teen vampire sensation Twilight infiltrated popular culture. And part of the reason they seem like such fixtures of celebrity already — apart from their impossible good looks, effortless cool and high-powered marketing machine — is their presence in print and command of their image. Flattering pictures may not be hard to come by when you’re young and playing magical characters, but from this charming Vanity Fair spread to the endless tabloid fabrications, the kids always come out looking all right.

With this weekend’s release of the latest entry in “The Twilight Saga:” New Moon, it’s safe to say a new publicity blitz is upon us. Until now, stars Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattinson have been the face of the group, but upcoming covers have been confirmed including new heartthrob Taylor Lautner (who plays Jacob) on Rolling Stone and a cast photo for Entertainment Weekly, but as you’ll see below, newsstands are already bleeding Twilight blood. Does the cast work best as an ensemble or do they have the star power to go out solo? In this edition of Cover Wars, we remember the classic covers from the Twilight franchise, knowing full well that many more are now in print. We’ll call it The Greatest Twilight Cover So Far. Here are the contenders:

Their debut cover, a July 2008 issue of Entertainment Weekly, was initially met with derision by the Twilight faithful, weary of seeing their favorite book series come to life. “That’s Edward?” they thought. But it might have been the final note of dissent — that, or the haters were drowned out by the screaming droves who quickly fell in love. The photo is cheesy, to be sure, but something about it made certain that it was the first of many.

Mediaite Grade (B-): The pale skin is too white. His sandy blonde hair seems off. An apple insinuates an incorrect fairy tale. The pair looks uncomfortable together, not drawn together by irresistible passion. And yet… maybe only in retrospect, but the B-movie feel of the cover is an apt introduction to the campy film, all glittery torsos and vampire baseball. And for Kirsten and Rob, it was the beginning of a beautiful friendship…

Are they the hip young versions of Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie? Probably — at least in the sense that their tabloid covers seem endless. Every time you step into the checkout line at a grocery store Stewart’s big bored eyes and Pattison’s glare are staring back at you, and in that sense, this OK! cover represents a much larger canon of tabloid Twilight. They’re as interchangeable as they are ubiquitous.

Mediaite Grade (C-): If you’re a fan of the celebrity romance, this is an easy one to buy into. It’s vague enough to be mysterious and picturesque enough to make for enjoyable covers. But that doesn’t mean it’s not dishonest. For instance, this issue of OK! uses a staged award show still with the headline “Yes! They’re in love.” And that’s to say nothing of “Obsessed With Each Other” or “Twilight Fight!” or… “Engaged!” Yikes.

>>>NEXT: Kristen and Rob Go Solo!

SLIDESHOW: Fake New York Post

While last November’s fake Times announced the end of the Iraq war, today’s fake Post is all about the environment. Nothing like printing papers to save trees! The fake Post reports, (real Post-style!) on secret environmental reports predicting “massive climate catastrophes, public health disasters.” Considering the recent resurgence of swine flu probably more than pre-coffee reader was taken in by the front page alone.

Courtesy of some loyal Mediaite readers we have a slideshow of some of the contents — the Page Six page featuring Brad Pitt and Pamela Anderson is actually fairly well done, though the Flopenhagen hed “Will Things Go Rotten in the State of Denmark” is a personal fave. Those Yes Men have been studying their Post! See the slideshow here.

Who

“We love you because we know you love movies as much as we love movies.”

Those were the opening words to the night’s final audience question. If any in attendance were not aware of Quentin Tarantino’s adulation for cinema before Lynn Hirschberg sat down with him, they certainly discovered it by evening’s end. Tarantino not only loves writing and making movies, but he loves talking about his love for writing and making movies. And, if this audience’s reaction is a reliable gauge, people certainly love to listen to him talk.

Tarantino was brought there to discuss his upcoming film, Inglourious Basterds. Hirschberg pointed out that the heroes in Tarantino’s films are always anti-heroes, protagonists who possess villainous qualities. Inglourious Basterds, whose main characters are assassins – Nazi-killing Jews and Jew-killing Nazis – follows suit. Tarantino explained that he lets his characters be who they are, and he tries to see life from their perspective without judging their morality. The result, he hopes, is a different kind of World War II than moviegoers are used to seeing.

Those differences extend beyond just the movie’s script and message. Tarantino focused a lot on language in this film, casting only German actors to play German characters to ensure that the dialect was accurate. He also made what Hirschberg, having seen an advanced screening, called a “very funny movie.” This, Tarantino said, is actually closer to the films of the 1960s and 70s when World War II movies like The Great Escape were still charming, entertaining and witty, in spite of heavier undertones. It reflects the way that Tarantino can bring so much energy and excitement to conversations about films that grapple with revenge, violence and war.

What They Said
“With the possible exception of Jews, no one has revenge fantasies on the Third Reich like modern Germans.”
- Quentin Tarantino on why his film was well-received in Germany

“You have to drink a lot of milk before you appreciate cream, but you have to drink a lot of milk that’s gone bad before you appreciate milk.”
– Quentin Tarantino explaining why he loves exploitation cinema

“Kill Bill exists in a movie universe…In that world, it’s not a ‘thing’ that women can be powerful warriors – also, there are samurai sword holders on airplanes.”
– Quentin Tarantino on the difference in filming Inglourious Basterds which is set in the real world

“I don’t have children, I come up with characters. They are my children.”
– Quentin Tarantino apparently birthed “The Gimp”

“World War II is the last time a whole bunch of white people fought another whole bunch of white people – you could infiltrate the other side, if you could speak the language.”
– Quentin Tarantino made a pretty fair point about war

What We Thought
•    At one point during the talk, a muffled emergency announcement went out over the Times building’s PA system. It was distracting. We half-suspected that Tarantino had arranged it to go off. When Hirschberg questioned him about it, he denied responsibility.
•    We’ve noticed it before, but it’s always more enjoyable to listen to people who have previous ties and affection for one another – rather than relative strangers – talk on stage.
•    We don’t know if there is anyone else who writes as organically as Tarantino. He says he does not plan subtext, doesn’t analyze his writing for themes, and doesn’t structure his characters.

PANEL RULES!
Some audience behavior seems to repeat itself panel after panel. We’ll be updating a running list of “PANEL RULES!” that will help ensure that you are not the dweeb of the Panel Nerds.

Panel Nerds don’t like… Campers
There will be time at the end for audience questions. There is no need to camp out at the mic at any point before then. This is especially true if your question is about Tarantino’s relationship with Roger Avary, who, if you know enough to ask about Avary, you should know Tarantino won’t answer you about it.

Panel Nerds don’t like… Reruns
We know it’s the summer, but there’s still no reason to air a repeat question that the moderator has already asked. If you don’t have a new question, it’s okay to sit back and listen.

Related:
Quentin Tarantino’s Top 20 Movies Since Reservoir Dogs [YouTube via Kottke via Fimoculous]
Twitter Coverage from @TimesTalks [Twitter]

Panel Nerds Etan Bednarsh and Danny Groner are New York-based writers and avid panel-goers. Want them at your panel? Email them here: PanelNerds@mediaite.com

These days Vanity Fair‘s strength, such as it is, lies mostly in its ability to recap some golden era that is still only available to the public through the TimeLife photo archive. To wit: The best-dressed VF archive that is also now online is far and away the more interesting read! Come to think of it, you know who should really do a best-dressed list? The Sartorialist! That would be a great read.

Anyway, best-dressed! Michelle Obama and Carla Bruni top the list. Okay, I take it back, I am not yet tired of looking at pictures of Michelle Obama. But Kelly Ripa is also inexplicably in there. Along with various, mostly uninteresting European royalty. Also, Brad Pitt, Alicia Keys, Anne Hathaway, oh and the President! Well he is well-dressed, it’s true. Oh, by the way you can vote on these, should you manage to make it all the way through. However, by number 17 or so it becomes clear why TMZ has had such great success. Yawn. Far more interesting is this slide show of the ‘Chosen Ones’ which includes the likes of Babe Paley, and Audrey Hepburn. If VF.com did a slide show like this every week we would come back for more.

Part bathroom stall graffiti, part scribbled-on cocktail napkin wadded up in our pants: We wouldn’t say that Esquire covers are in a league of their own, but they certainly do their own thing. The design is playfully masculine and the text demands careful examination (even if we’re just sitting on the can or digging things out of our pockets on laundry day).  

Mediaite Grade (B): The August cover with Gerard Butler, of King Leonidas 300 fame, might not be an eye-catcher, but it is certainly classic Esquire. For one the shallow depth of field, his soft knee in the foreground, is something fresh, but the scrawl around his left arm and fingers goes to far. Photoshop has its limits, and here Butler’s arm looks like it’s been stapled on. Everything in moderation, Esquire.

Wired might not be a men’s mag per se, although the staff might like to think they can steal readers — smarter, dorkier readers — away from the likes of GQ and Esquire. And when was the last time we saw a male celeb’s portrait on the cover? Not since Steve Carell last May, unless you’d call Microsoft’s Roy Ozzie a celeb. But then again, if you’re reading Wired you probably would.

Mediaite Grade (A): Wired beats the men’s mag pack at its own game this week. Something about Brad Pitt sweating bullets with a Bluetooth headset is hilarious (very Chad Feldheimer meets Rusty Ryan). Better yet we might actually want to read “The New Rules for Digital Gentleman and other Highly Evolved Humans” because, you know, we’ve always wondered if it’s cool to text while we’re using the urinal.

We feel the same way about Jason Bateman as we feel about Details magazine. We love some of their past works, but at times they can be a bit — how should we say — less than edgy? Arrested Developement was genius, as was Details feature on Mandingo Swinger Parties from 2007.  That said,  Forgetting Sarah Marshall (2008), Hancock (2008) and even Juno (2007) were a little ho-hum. And Details’ last couple of covers — Bradley Cooper, Eric Bana and A-Rod — have been, well, flat. More like Eric Banal and A-Nod — AM I RIGHT?!

Mediaite Grade (B+): The August cover could have been a big boring disaster, but the deck “Not All Former Child Stars are Felons” takes care of that. Plus, we want his tie. So maybe the Jason Bateman cover story is no Mandingo Swinger Party, but we might pick it up instead of GQ.

We don’t mean to hate, but when did GQ get so fratty? We’re not sure we want to read about “The Greatest Violent Movies Ever Made”;  or “The Greatest Sandwich Known to Man”; and definitely not “Every Girl’s Crazy ‘Bout A Sharp Dressed Man.” Not to mention that Channing Tatum — Mr. G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra (2009) himself — isn’t exactly helping GQ‘s case.

Mediaite Grade (C+): If we wanted to read about shoot ‘em ups and sandwiches we would have reached for Maxim. And putting a former Abercrombie model on the cover make is not enough to be a men’s fashion magazine. Never fear, GQ, you’ll get us next time.

COVER WARS WINNER: Ever the dark horse in the world of men’s magazines — or should we say ‘magazines that men might like to read’ — Wired won us over this month with its brains and good looks. We’re always looking for something a little smarter to read, especially if photos of Brad Pitt eating donuts over his keyboard are involved. But maybe we’ll just keep that our little secret…