The crowd-funded Veronica Mars reboot has a new gift for its devoted fanbase: the first two minutes of the film, set for release this month.

The clip doesn't reveal much—it's more of a "Last decade on Veronica Mars," recapping the show's three seasons, which ended in 2007.

But it ends with a wink and a nod to the devoted Mars fans, who refer to themselves as marshmallows, a reference to a line from the show's premiere in 2004. The power of the Mars fanbase raised $5.7 million on Kickstarter—far more than the $2 million goal the film set—and paved the way for Zach Braff's crowd-funded Garden State sequel.

The Oscars 2014 feel like (are?) a commercial for Samsung, with Ellen DeGeneres flashing a Galaxy Note and taking selfies left right and center. It's ridiculous. Backstage? She's using her iPhone, of course. PR people will never learn.

I really don't know what were they thinking. DeGeneres is a well known iPhone fan. She even made her own iPhone app.

SPLOID is a new blog about awesome stuff. Join us on Facebook

Lupita Nyong'o's acceptance speech for Best Supporting Actress paid touching, heartfelt tribute to her 12 Years a Slave director Steve McQueen, her co-stars, and her family. Along with Jared Leto's , it was one of the night's highlights.

pic.twitter.com/a37CCtcX1F

— GMT (@clasehit) March 3, 2014

This is so much better than Ellen's original tweet stunt, which has indeed gone on to become the most retweeted photo of all time (or at least, it has surpassed Obama's "Four more years" tweet accompanied by a pic of him hugging his wife Michelle, long considered the most retweeted photo of all time).

If only Bradley's arm was longer. Best photo ever. #oscars pic.twitter.com/C9U5NOtGap

— Ellen DeGeneres (@TheEllenShow) March 3, 2014

As he presented the award for Best Cinematographer with Amy Adams, Bill Murray snuck in a classy, touching tribute to his longtime collaborator Harold Ramis, whom he'd feuded with for the decade before Ramis' death last week.

California governor Jerry Brown is harshing on Colorado and Washington's multimillion dollar mellow .

The governor appeared on Meet the Press this morning and talked pot, saying California's medical marijuana laws—which are a very serious bar to obtaining marijuana , and definitely not just a $30 "doctor" appointment at the Venice Beach boardwalk—shouldn't be relaxed because it would ruin the country.

It's worth noting Brown was accused of hosting cocaine-and-marijuana-fueled parties at his Los Angeles home in the '90s.

"How many people can get stoned and still have a great state or a great nation?" Brown told David Gregory. "The world's pretty dangerous, very competitive. I think we need to stay alert, if not 24 hours a day, more than some of the potheads might be able to put together. "

Because no admitted marijuana users have gone on to be president , host the Oprah Winfrey show, or sit on the Supreme Court.

[image via AP]

Which ancient, neurotic pervert got more applause at the Oscars on Sunday night—Woody Allen or God?

Cate Blanchett thanked Allen, who was accused of child molestation (again) by his daughter Dylan Farrow last year, in her acceptance speech for Blue Jasmine, which Allen directed. He received a small round of tepid applause.

Matthew McConaughey thanked God, who separated the light from the darkness, in his acceptance speech for Dallas Buyer's Club, of which God was the ultimate cause. God received an even smaller round of even less enthusiastic applause.

Neither got as much applause as Adele Dazeem.

Sorry Hilaria , there's a new top workout video in town.

The Oscars were last night, and like every other sane person on the planet you were busy watching True Detective. Luckily for you your non-sane correspondents at Gawker were watching the Oscars. This is what you missed.

The Red Carpet: Boring, and then Jennifer Lawrence fell, which is, at this point, boring. Boring!

Ellen's monologue was boring until the last 30 seconds, when she crammed in the Jonah Hill dick joke and the 12 Years a Slave "racist" joke.

Ukrainians were thrilled and enervated by this show of support from Jared Leto. Take that, Vladimir!

Meryl Streep shimmied with Pharrell.

Vertigo legend Kim Novak needed aggressive back rubs to stay alive and upright.

Darlene Love stole the mic and everyone knew better than to play her off.

Bradley Cooper took the most-RTed selfie of all time... on an iPhone, not a Samsung.

If only Bradley's arm was longer. Best photo ever. #oscars pic.twitter.com/C9U5NOtGap

— Ellen DeGeneres (@TheEllenShow) March 3, 2014

(This is the good stuff) Lupita gave a gracious speech...

...and despite a decades-long feud, Bill Murray paid a small, touching tribute to the late Harold Ramis.

Meanwhile Matthew McConaughey acted totally normal during his acceptance speech, like a normal guy who is not on drugs would act.

And Steve McQueen danced.

And then it ended. Ideally you used the five hours you didn't spend watching this to do something productive with your life.

Here's John Travolta at Sunday night's Oscar ceremony, introducing the star of Frozen... Adele Dazeem? Uh...? Who's that?

Travolta was supposed to introduce Idina Menzel, who was singing "Let It Go" from the Disney musical. Somehow he managed transform "Idina" into "Adele" and "Menzel" into "Dazeem." Luckily Dazeem herself was on Twitter:

THANK YOU, JORN TROMOLTO!

— Adela Dazeem (@AdelaDazeem) March 3, 2014

Also, while we're asking questions: John Travolta...?

After John Ridley won the Best Adapted Screenplay Oscar on Sunday night for his work on 12 Years a Slave, Slave director Steve McQueen offered a less-than-enthusiastic palm clap for his colleague. And then Ridley refused to thank McQueen during his acceptance speech. What gives?

According to Hollywood reporter/tweeter Nikki Finke, the two men are on unpleasant terms regarding the film's screenplay:

My sources attributing John Ridley-Steve McQueen cold shoulder at Oscars tonight to dispute over screenplay credit.

— Nikki Finke (@NikkiFinke) March 3, 2014

Watch the video of Ridley receiving his award and judge for yourself:

If you know anything about this alleged feud, feel free to drop us a line at tips@defamer.com.

Cool Pope Francis strikes again: On Sunday, the pontiff accidentally said "fuck" during his weekly blessing from the Vatican.

To be fair, the prayer was in Italian, not Francis's native Spanish, and the Italian word for "Fuck" ("cazzo") is close to the Italian word "caso" ("example" or "case"), which is what the Pope was trying to say. He quickly corrected his mistake.

Aside from the accidental "fuck," it seemed like a very nice blessing.

"If each one of us does not amass riches only for oneself, but half for the service of others, in this fuck [pause], in this case the providence of God will become visible through this gesture of solidarity," Francis told followers gathered in St Peter's Square, according to the Local.

UPDATE: As some commenters have pointed out, "cazzo" technically translates to something like "dick" or "cock," though Italians most often use it to mean "fuck" (Google Translate also defines it as "fuck"). So, for the sake of accuracy: Pope Francis either said "fuck" or "cock" during his weekly blessing on Sunday.

[via Daily Mail]

Last week, the Washington Post published one doctor's remembrance of the emotions associated with treating a morbidly obese patient. The doctor was condemned for purported "fat-shaming." Is your doctor really fat-shaming you?

The Washington Post piece, by Edward Thompson, is meant to evoke in the reader a sense of "there but for the grace of god go I" towards a man that weighs 600 pounds. If read with an ungenerous spirit, its tone in some places could be seen as harsh. Yet the backlash is not unique to this story; stories abound online of "fat shaming" experiences in doctor's offices across the country. Among some of the more prominent proponents of the fat acceptance movement, the idea that doctors routinely fat-shame their obese patients has reached the status of conventional wisdom.

Common sense tells us that there are most certainly some doctors with poor bedside manner. There are most certainly doctors who have made rude remarks and acted callously towards their obese patients. There is most certainly a need for doctors to be trained to act and speak with sensitivity, both to avoid turning off their own patients, and for the sake of manners. And it is most certainly a fact that it is not easy being an obese person. Empathy for those who face serious challenges in life is a hallmark of common human decency.

That said: the fact that some doctors may at times be rude to obese patients is something very different from the supposition that virtually any suggestion by a doctor that an obese person should diet, exercise, and lose weight amounts to "fat shaming." We can all agree that doctors should not be rude; likewise, (I hope) we can all agree that doctors are medical professionals whose task it is to advise patients on their health issues. Obesity is a serious health issue. It is a doctor's duty to do what they can to help an obese patient to lose weight—which includes pointing out to them, in a polite and constructive way, that they are obese, that losing weight would be good for their health, and how to best accomplish that.

I am only saying all this because it often seems that those who speak out most publicly against the idea of fat shaming by doctors have a rather expansive view of what "fat shaming" is. A few examples—first, from an October 2011 essay about an overweight woman's visit to the gynecologist, published on XO Jane:

"I'm not concerned about it," I said tightly [when the doctor advised her to lose weight], "and if it comes up again I'm going to have to find another doctor."

"Any other doctor would tell you the same," he said, as though I hadn't been coming to him, just as fat as now, for several years.

"Well, I prefer a doctor who at least waits to hear what I eat before telling me to eat less."

He looked exasperated. "There's no possible way you're not eating too much."

After that, I was sort of blinded by a fine mist of fury particles for a little while

From a November 2011 essay on XO Jane:

Last Tuesday, I went to my gynecologist for my annual. My doctor is a cool lady, and even gave me a recommendation for her favorite sex toy shop, so I have a lot of respect for her. I was not so cool with what happened after the exam, however.

"So, I've noticed that you've gained 19 pounds in the past six months. Maybe you should think about changing your lifestyle habits."

Given that I am aggressively working on dealing with the stress-related eating and lack of exercise that led to this weight gain, I was predictably pissed.

And a January 2014 essay on XO Jane:

"You should really be watching your weight," [the doctor] said, which created a momentary vision in my mind of being asked to watch a friend's luggage at the airport while she darts to the bathroom to take a pee, but I know that's not what she meant.

"Watch your weight" is code for "get less fat."

The thing is, I know that the science behind "fat=unhealthy" is bad. I've read numerous studies on the subject and I've written about it. I could have countered her on purely medical grounds with discussions about set points and health as a complex issue, and how fat hatred and the diet industry drive mainstream medical approaches to weight. And I could have said, too, that people have a right to be treated like human beings regardless as to their weight and health risks.

What these essays have in common are a knee-jerk sense of being insulted when a doctor advised the writer—all of whom were, in fact, significantly overweight or obese—to lose weight. In all three cases, trained medical professionals gave their patients the entirely unremarkable advice that they should lose weight. And in all cases, the patients responded by getting angry at a perceived insult, rather than by taking what they were they were being told to heart. (We will not get into the discussion here of the last writer's dubious assertion that "the science behind 'fat=unhealthy' is bad.")

If you meet someone at a party, it is not appropriate to remark upon their weight. If you meet someone at the gym, it is not appropriate to remark upon their weight. As a matter of fact, the inside of a doctor's office is one of the only places in the entire world where it is appropriate to remark upon someone's weight. We go to our doctors for the hard medical truth. "You drink too much," they tell us. "You have erectile dysfunction." "You have too much stress." "You don't sleep enough." "Your diet is terrible." "You need to stop smoking." "You need to stop having unsafe sex." And, yes, "You need to lose weight."

This is a doctor's job. Of course many things that doctors tell us are uncomfortable. That is why our interactions with our doctors are confidential (until we write an essay about them). Still, we listen to our doctors, because—though we might wish we did not have to heed their advice—we know that their advice is given with the goal of improving our health. It may not be pleasant to answer in-depth questions about exactly what we're eating, drinking, smoking, and fucking. It may not be fun to hear stern words of warning about our poor lifestyle choices. But we listen, because it is for our own good. Even if we already know that some of these things are bad for us, our doctors still tell us, because hearing these things from a doctor can often instill us with the fear-based motivation we could not find within ourselves. It is irresponsible to tell people that they should ignore a doctor's valid medical advice simply because it is unpleasant to hear.

Shame is a natural feeling. Obesity is a challenging condition. Losing weight is hard work. There are countless obstacles to doing so. Your doctor is probably not one of them.

[Photo: Shutterstock]

Billionaire bachelor Rupert Murdoch may be in the market for a fourth wife. The 82-year-old mogul escorted Kleiner Perkins partner Juliet de Baubigny to Vanity Fair's Oscar party last night, posing for photos with his arm around the 44-year-old Silicon Valley investor.

Vanity Fair has been kind to the pair—naming de Baubigny one of "Silicon Valley's Most Stylish," and bringing to light the elder abuse Murdoch faced at the hands of ex-wife Wendi Deng.

The Daily Mail described de Baubigny as both Murdoch's "young blonde companion" and "pal," noting that the ladies love Uncle Rupert:

But the venture capitalist was not the only woman surrounding Murdoch at the party on Sunday night.

Murdoch was surrounded by a flurry of young women at the Hollywood party.

The pair were alongside Tinseltown's A-list on Sunday night in Los Angeles, from Bruce Willis, to Sofia Vergara and Adam Levine, to name a few.

Juliet de Baubigny recently appeared in British Vogue as part of an "alpha trio" of "Swags, " short for Silicon Wives and Girlfriends. (Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer and One Kings Lane founder Alison Pincus rounded out the triumvirate.) Vogue put de Baubigny squarely in the "wife" column, noting the $3 million home she shared in Atherton with her husband Andre de Baubigny Jr., an investment banker turned venture capitalist, and their two kids.

However records from San Mateo County Superior Court state that the de Baubignys "marital status ending date" was February, 27, 2012. She filed a petition for the dissolution of their marriage in April 7, 2011, not long after describing the hourly details of trying to "do it all" for her friend Gwenyth Paltrow's newsletter in 2010.

Question is: are VCs good with a pie block?

To contact the author of this post, please email nitasha@gawker.com.

[Images via Getty]

Tony Panzino was losing his panties, and he wanted to know why.

When Panzino, the proprietor of Premier Couples Superstore in Orlando, couldn't account for $6,000 in sexy lingerie, he reportedly did what any Florida man would do: He forced his entire staff to take a lie-detector test.

He says one employee out of all ten, Amitra Alexander, failed that test. But she's suing Panzino in court, claiming he violated her legal rights by putting her on the box.

Via WKMG-6 in Orlando:

According to Alexander's lawsuit, Panzino informed employees that they were not considered suspects, but he wanted them to take a polygraph test to make sure they had nothing to do with the stolen items. Workers who refused to take the polygraph would be terminated, said Alexander.

Two days after taking the polygraph, Alexander claims Panzino told her she had failed the test and fired her based on the results.

"I did not fire her for failing the test," insists Panzino. Instead, the store owner tells Local 6, he terminated Alexander based on the way she talked and behaved in his office after being notified of the test results, which he described as a "99 percent fail."

At issue are the provisions of the 1988 Employee Polygraph Protection Act, "generally prevents employers from using lie detector tests, either for pre-employment screening or during the course of employment, with certain exemptions," according to the Department of Labor.

The exemptions are mostly for armed security guards and purveyors of pharmaceuticals, but there's a catch-all that permits polygraph testing of "employees who are reasonably suspected of involvement in a workplace incident that results in economic loss to the employer and who had access to the property that is the subject of an investigation."

Even if Panzino's test fulfills that standard, he still has to prove the test was run according to the law, including proper notifications to employees and giving them the chance to opt out. (Also, what control questions do you ask a porn-shop worker?)

According to the Orlando Sentinel, in her suit Alexander "is seeking an unspecified amount of damages, lost wages and wants to be reinstated to her former position at the business." Damn, that's commitment. If it doesn't happen, maybe she can get work at Premier's partner, Club Relate ("A Co-Ed Masturbation Swing Club For You!") I'm guessing they ask a lot fewer questions over there.

[Photo credit: pefostudio5/Shutterstock]

He's okay.

[Image via @dhm on Twitter]

According to reports in Ukrainian media, Russia issued an ultimatum on Monday that all Ukrainian military forces in Crimea must surrender by 5:00 a.m. (10 p.m. EST) or face immediate military intervention. Earlier in the day, reports surfaced that Russia's military issued a similar ultimatum to three Ukrainian warships stationed in the Black Sea. Russia has denied both claims, which a spokesman in Moscow described as "ridiculous."

News of the instability in Ukraine sent stock markets plummeting; the Moscow stock market fell 11.3 percent, and the Dow Jones lost more 153 points.

In a statement, President Obama issued stern-sounding, if vague, threats of action if Russia refuses to stand down. "What we are also indicating to the Russians is that if, in fact, they continue on the current trajectory that they're on, that we are examining a whole series of steps – economic, diplomatic – that will isolate Russia and will have a negative impact on Russia's economy and its standing in the world," he said.

During an emergency session in Brussels, the European Union condemned Russia, promising "targeted measures" unless Russia retreats, though no consensus on a response was reached. From the New York Times:

The German foreign minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, said that "crisis diplomacy is not a weakness but it will be more important than ever to not fall into the abyss of military escalation," an indication that the Europeans would not agree on significant action. Dutch Foreign Minister Frans Timmermans told reporters that "sanctions are not in order today but sanctions will become inevitable" if there is no change in Russia's position.

Meanwhile, British Foreign Secretary William Hague visited Kiev to meet with and show support for the new Ukrainian government. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry is set to meet him there tomorrow.

"The world cannot just allow this to happen," Hague told the BBC from Kiev. "The world cannot say it's O.K. in effect to violate the sovereignty of another nation in this way."

[Image via AP]

Oh, Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa). With Michele Bachmann retiring, we're going to have to count on you for incoherent defenses of antiquarian antipathies. Like, how would you explain your disappointment in Arizona for not passing that "Gays Not Served Here " law?

Fortunately, King did just that Sunday on Iowa's WHO-TV, and he used mostly small words, except when he wanted to sound legally impressive, at which point he used large-ish words, enunciating them slowly as if they were small words jammed up together like kids thinking sinful thoughts at the fall harvest ball.

Right Wing Watch has the video of King's antigay ramble. Walk with me, will you?

When you're in the private sector and you're an individual entrepreneur with God-given rights that our founding fathers defined in the Declaration, you should be able to make your own decisions on what you do in that private business. And I'm always uneasy about the idea of the philosophy that you're a private-slash-public business, because you have a door that's open that anybody can walk in. That doesn't mean that you have to perform any kind of service that they demand.

Gotcha! Open doors are the worst. So. Can I stop serving blacks at my lunch counter already, or what?

Oh, wait, it's about at this point that King realizes we do require service providers to, you know, provide services to customers without discrimination:

Although we have—it's clear that in the civil rights part of the code that you can't discriminate against anybody based upon—not sure I've got the list right, but—race, creed, religion, color of skin, those kind of things.

Right! So, I should start working on my "Best Wishes Adam and Steve" icing skills, and stocking up on little cake grooms?

Not so fast, King says: gayness is different. It's queer, even:

And there's nothing mentioned in [civil rights laws] about self-professed behavior, and that's what they're trying to protect is special rights for self-professed behavior and I think it's difficult for us to define a law that would protect behavior.

Even to a cornpone Des Moines TV announcer, that sounded like a load of horse hockey. I mean, it makes sense from Steve King's point of view: He presumably likes having sex in vaginas, and any man who doesn't love having sex in vaginas as much as Steve King loves having sex in vaginas is not going to succeed in convincing Steve King that a man can be pre-programmed to not love sex in vaginas. This is a conundrum that the announcer tries to resolve by asking King: Do you really think homosexuality is mere self-profession, choice?

I don't know whether that's a choice or not. I think that that exists across the continuum, in some type of a… curve, and I don't know what that curve actually looks like. I think some's nature and some's nurture, and some might be purely each.

On a 10-point scale of scientific soundness, with a 10 being Neil DeGrasse Tyson and 1 being a not-quite-dead snake-handling holy roller, I give him a 2 here.

But I think a lot of it is a combination of nature and nurture and, but, the one thing that I reference when I say 'self-professed,' is how do you know who to discriminate against? They about have to tell you. And are they then setting up a case? Is this about bringing a grievance or is it actually about a service that they'd like to have - and doesn't free enterprise provide that service if the demand is there? Someone can open up a cake shop, can't they?

Goddamned wily anti-market gays may be setting you up for a trap by telling you they're gay when you serve them. It's like, you know, when a white kid from Jersey goes around to a bunch of ACORN offices asking them about doing crimes and shit. Don't take the bait! Except that as a Christian who eschews sinful homosexuality, it's your God-given right to take that bait!

Also, gays get no rights because regardless of what Steve King said before, Steve King would like to now imply that no one can prove they're gay, or at least unchangeably gay:

If it's not specifically protected in the Constitution, then it's got to be an immutable characteristic, that being a characteristic that can be independently verified and can't be willfully changed...

But I have a question, Steve: You haven't yet compared gays to gay-bashers, lynchers, skinheads, and other bigots. When could you get around to that?

...and when we get into the area of even hate crimes legislation, I've opposed that, because you're punishing people for what you think went on in their head at the time they perpetuated their crime. And it's a murky area of the law. We've not gone that way until the modern era, and I think it's very messy.

Ahhhhhhhhh, there it is. Embrace the mess, Steven.

Pro tip: When opening your university's new art museum, don't pull an exhibition drawing attention to a famous donor's racist tendencies because it's "not aligned with the celebratory atmosphere." It's not supposed to be a celebration of your being a censoring a-hole.

It's 2014 and Twitter isn't a profitable company—but did you see how many retweets Ellen got last night? The Hollywood selfie seems like a giant business coup for ad-reliant Twitter, but it says more about the power of a century-old technology than anything else.

Twitter is still making up its attempt at revenue as it goes along, but it's still based largely on the assumption that the likes of Pepsi and Pringles will pay to force you to read tweets about Pepsi and Pringles. Television is the next frontier for this advertising logic—Twitter tells advertisers that it will "target" TV viewers with more ads, as explained below:

This all hinges on everyone—you, Twitter, advertisers, actors, agencies, networks—slowly conflating TV viewing and tweeting as one idle, LCD-jammed couch activity. We tweet when we watch the tube, just like we Instagram while we eat. At least that's the idea. Before Twitter went public, Forbe's Jeff Bercovici explained one real life example of Twitter squeezing dollars from television:

The purest expression of Twitter's let's-profit-together philosophy: Amplify, a program used by more than 35 networks and other broadcasting partners to distribute short video clips. Each clip is preceded by a short ad, which Twitter and the partner sell jointly.

Here's how it works: Say Detroit Lions receiver Calvin Johnson scores a spectacular touchdown during a Thursday night game in the NFL Network. The league, an Amplify partner, tweets out a clip to its 5.1 million followers with a six-second commercial for Pepsi and pays to have it promoted. The league and Twitter both make money — they've already booked more than $10 million in commitments — and the NFL Network gets the benefit of added viewership from users who see the tweet and opt to tune in.

So when millions (plural!) of Oscar viewers all retweet together at once, it looks like the company's plan is working out perfectly—people are reliably tweet-watching in huge numbers, and their behavior can be orchestrated. Click, click more, my babies. But the leap from popularity to profitability is only implied. Twitter scored an Oscar night PR victory by proving it can get millions of people using it free service in a coordinated manner, but how this translates into a valuable tool for advertisers is still fuzzy.

More importantly, this victory wasn't really Twitter's. The "biggest retweet in history" is a contrived stunt to begin with, but it owes everything to the people we watched on our big screens, not our pocket screens. Ellen Degeneres—the very famous host of an extremely famous award show—commanded television viewers to click the same button. She stood next to a group of some of the most beautiful, beloved, rich, and otherwise attention-laden celebrities, whose gorgeous group image she asked us all to propagate. We were already tuned in—we already agreed to care about these people. We were Ellen's, not Twitter's, putty in the hands of ABC and not Jack Dorsey. Really, convincing millions of Oscar-watchers to spread that selfie was about as much of an accomplishment as getting the stars to accept a statuette.

If Twitter could command our behavior without the aid of mega-celebs and orgiastic Hollywood buzz would've been the real feat. For now it's just Ellen's stage assistant.