Living(-in) happily ever after?

So, the supposedly "wholesome" and "gentle" TV host has finally won the heart of a TV-movie actress (and commercial model), one of the two girls (the other was also an actress) he was pursuing doggedly late last year.

In fact, according to Funfare's roving DPA, the two are now "living(-in) happily ever after" in the guy's pad somewhere near the station where he works. Neighbors see the girl walking the guy's dog in the sun in the morning, wearing (the girl) a satisfied "morning after" smile (you know what that means, don't you?)

The girl, according to the DPA, was also the "playmate" of a foreign actor she once worked with, "But I guess the TV host knows about her past romance(s)," added the DPA.

If you watch him on TV, the guy looks "harmless" but he's really a silent lady-killer. I'm sure he's rejoicing now that he has found another girl (he was rumored to have lived-in with his co-host before) to keep him company, to keep his once-lonely nights full of thrill and excitement.

Funfare readers have been asking when the sequel to 1999's No. 1 box-office hit Isusumbong Kita sa Tatay Ko, topbilled by FPJ and Judy Ann Santos, will start grinding.

The sad news is that it has been put "on hold" while FPJ is looking for a story better than the first one.

Besides, after finishing his movie Ayos na ang Kasunod with Ara Mina, FPJ is thinking of teaming up again with Maricel Soriano with whom he did a movie (Batang Quiapo) 10 years ago. After that, he might do another movie with Sharon Cuneta next year, after Sharon shall have given birth. Both projects are for Star Cinema.

Meanwhile, Dolphy (now starring with Serena Dalrymple in Star Cinema's DaddyO, BabyO, directed by his son Eric Quizon) might do a movie with Jolina Magdangal before he starts shooting the Walterina (Comfort Gay) movie, also starring son Eric, with Gil M. Portes as director.

Here's an interesting contribution from Paul R. Mortel of MBLA Court, Malanday, Marikina City 1805:

I would like to share with your readers the mistakes in popular movies which were box-office hits in our country when they were shown some years back:

1. Movie: Spartacus (1960)

Scene: Peter Ustinov gets off his horse.

Blooper: His jockey shorts are visible under his tunic as he climbs down.

2. Movie -- Ben Hur (1959)

Scene: The chariot scene.

Blooper: A red sports car is driving by the Coliseum in the distance.

3. Movie: Gandhi (1982)

Scene: Crowd scene

Blooper: One of the peasants is wearing Adidas tennis shoes.

4. Movie: The Alamo (1960)

Scenes: The battle sequences

Bloopers: Though the movie is a Western, you can see several mobile trailers in the distance. And in another scene, you can see a stuntman falling into a mattress.

5. Movie: The Wizard of Oz (1939)

Scene: Dorothy, the Tin Woodsman, and the Scarecrow dance down the yellow brick road singing: "We're off to see the Wizard."

Blooper: A crew member can be seen in the background among the trees.

Source: The Best of Uncle John's Bathroom Reader.

Reader's reaction

Here's also an interesting reaction letter from a reader who requested anonymity and called himself only by the name "Jeff" (no address given):

I would like to comment on the episode of The Probe Team that tackled about the gay/bi men chatters' eyeball (EB) last month. I think what The Probe Team did was too irresponsible and improper, and most of all it was clearly an INVASION OF PRIVACY.

You know, gay men are being prejudiced and discriminated upon in this homophobic country. As such, they would rather die than reveal their oftentimes "unwanted" sexual orientation. Chatting offers these closeted men friends without losing their discreetness. It offers them non-discriminating acquaintances that they can't find outside their closet. At times, they meet and socialize with one another in a "discreet" location, thinking that no "intruders" and "uninvited guests" are present.

But look at what The Probe did! They brought along with them hidden cameras to take shots of the group's activities. Worse, they showed the faces of these hiding men on TV.

What is The Probe Team trying to probe? That this and that discreet, decent, and very straight-acting man is actually gay? What right does The Probe have to reveal the life-long secret this gay man has kept? If one man in that party was discovered to be gay by his colleagues or family, does The Probe know what the episode would cost the man? His promotion ... his job... his family ... his life! It's not worth it! It never will!

Now, if The Probe Team is what responsible journalism is in this land (as it claims to be), then I don't want to imagine what sensational journalism is!