Hayley Williams is quickly realizing the power of the written word — or at least the power of the vaguely worded blog post.

On Friday (February 22), less than 24 hours after a post she wrote on Paramore’s Web site inadvertently started a cavalcade of rather nasty breakup rumors, Williams took to the blog once again, this time hoping to clear up all confusion about the state of her band.

“Since we posted the last entry, we’ve gotten tons of phone calls and people posting things on Web sites saying that we are breaking up. I just want to make it clear, though … we weren’t saying the band was over,” she wrote. “We posted because we are going through hard times and we felt that because we have a really good support system in you guys, our fans, it would be better for us to just be honest about what’s going on — even though it was a pretty vague explanation.”

She’s not kidding, either. Williams’ post — and the rather vague mentions of “internal issues” contained within — was picked up by nearly every Paramore fan site and celeb-gossip spot across the Net, causing a panic among fans and kicking up some particularly insane rumors in the process, including one that the feisty frontwoman was breaking up the band because she was pregnant. All of this made for a rather colossal headache for Williams, who claims she was just trying to be honest with the band’s fanbase about why Paramore cancelled their European tour. (Note to Hayley: This is the Internet. Vagueness + honesty = danger!)

“Man, some of the rumors that I’ve heard going around are insane! It’s weird how out of hand things can get even when you just try to tell a simple truth (for the record, my Eggo is not preggo),” Williams wrote. “Anyway, we just need to take time to make this band the best it can be … and we are doing that now.”

Thursday, when contacted by MTV News for comment on Paramore’s status, a spokesperson for their label, Atlantic Records, would only offer that they’re scheduled to shoot a video for the song “That’s What You Get” in Nashville on March 2-3, and then will embark on a co-headlining tour with Jimmy Eat World in April. And in that spirit, Williams ended her latest blog post with a scheduling reminder of her own — mainly that fans can count on seeing Paramore take the stage March 27 at the Hard Rock in Orlando.

“Thanks for all the love and the encouragement you guys have shown,” she wrote. “And WE WILL! be seeing you guys on the 27th of March in Orlando, FL.”

[Via Cinematical]

NEW ORLEANS — Lil Wayne knows it’s time for his Tha Carter III LP. First he said February, then we heard March, now Weezy has pegged April as his new due date.

Blame it on creativity.

“I make it worse for Universal [Records],” Wayne said Tuesday, sitting on his tour bus. “I keep doing new songs every other day. I don’t stop working, so I don’t know when they gonna get that. Everything I do be better than the last, like, ‘Oh, this gotta make the album!’ ”

With all the shuffling and recording going on, Wayne said he has material to take him all the way up to Carter 10. For his third installment, though, he’s worked with Hurricane Chris, Jay-Z, Corey Gunz, his artist Tiger (younger cousin of Gym Class Heroes’ Travis McCoy), Lil Mama, Busta Rhymes, Juelz Santana, Fabolous, Baby, Brisco, Dre from Cool & Dre, and Ludacris on a duet called “Eat You Alive.” Alchemist, Swizz Beatz, Cool & Dre, Kanye West, Jim Johnson and his own in-house producer Diesel supplied the beats.

The first single, at least for now, is called “A Millie,” a hard splatter of relentless wordplay, unnerved style and a down-bottom bass beat. His second single, aimed at the ladies, is called “Lollipop” and features acclaimed songwriter Static (Aaliyah, Timbaland, Missy Elliott).

“That’s me. I love music,” he said about the new tattoo on his face that reads “I Am Music” in red letters. “I found a love for music. I owe it all to a lot of people in the game. They don’t even know.” T-Pain and Prince are among those he names.

While Weezy has been inspired by many, he took time on Tuesday to inspire the youth at his old school, Eleanor McMain Secondary School. He sat down and answered questions from an art class filled with juniors and seniors.

He started at the school in seventh grade and was in the band. That’s where he met his manager, Cortez Bryant, who was right by his side on Tuesday. Discussion topics ranged from his mother being a pivotal part of his life to how he’s hoping one day he and his daughter can be like Miley and Billy Ray Cyrus. He even got a potential date out of the meeting: A young girl named Julie asked him to the school’s prom on April 19.

“I’ll be out the country then. Sorry,” he said with a smile.

“Coming back to speak to them is super-important,” he said later that afternoon. “It was my school. I went to that school. I attended that school. It shows them somebody from there made it. It makes them feel like you can do it. That right there was so important. I see it in their eyes, like, ‘We can do something.’ Not just doing what I’m doing, but, ‘We can be successful.’ ”

The students made Wayne an elaborate fleur-de-lis, which he plans to use as a backdrop for his shows.

Wayne is also involved in a restoration project in Harrell Park, where he played football as a kid. He remembers it as a meeting place where the two ‘hoods of Pigeon Town and Hollygrove would meet up, socialize and sometimes rumble. After Hurricane Katrina, FEMA gutted the park to make room for trailers. Weezy’s plans include putting up the funds for indoor basketball courts and indoor pools.

[Via Cinematical]

LOS ANGELES — One of the most intriguing aspects of the Oscars is their instant coronation of a film as an all-time classic. Decade after decade, people continue to discover “Gone With the Wind,” “From Here to Eternity,” “Gandhi” and other flicks that were filmed years before they were born. And it’s all for one simple reason: Those movies took home a ton of Oscars.

Unquestionably, such interest will continue for decades to come, as your kids and grandkids rent flicks like “Titanic,” “Lord of the Rings: Return of the King” and “Shakespeare in Love,” eager to see if these big Oscar winners are as good as Grandma and Grandpa’s generation believed. But what will you say when they ask you about “Monster,” “The Last King of Scotland” or “American Gangster”?

“I think that ‘Last King of Scotland’ is a pretty mediocre movie, with one good performance,” insisted Todd Gilchrist, senior editor for movies site IGN.com. “But [Forest Whitaker's] performance was so strong that it overcame any of the shortcomings of the other parts of the movie.”

Over the past few years, Hollywood has witnessed the rise of a potentially troubling trend: Movies nominated for only one of the big six awards (Best Actor, Best Actress, Best Supporting Actor, Best Supporting Actress, Best Director and Best Picture). This year, twelve different films, ranging from “Gangster” to “Into the Wild,” received only one major nomination.

In the eyes of some, the implication is clear: Feel free to fast-forward through the scenes that don’t feature Cate Blanchett.

Halle Berry became an awards-season juggernaut with 2001’s “Monster’s Ball.” Still, there was no serious discussion of director Marc Forster, co-stars Heath Ledger and Billy Bob Thornton, or even the film itself being worthy of a little gold guy.

“Remember ‘Monster’s Ball,’ when Halle Berry got all the attention?” asked Staci Wilson, a reporter for several movie sites, including SciFi.com. “It was great, because she raised the bar for the Academy to look outside the box a bit. But personally, I thought Billy Bob Thornton’s performance had such an emotional impact, and I was surprised when he wasn’t nominated — and neither was Heath Ledger.”

History repeated itself again last year with “Scotland,” as Whitaker took home award after award while the film’s star (James McAvoy), female lead (Kerry Washington) and director (Kevin McDonald) watched the ceremonies at home in their jammies.

“Surprisingly, [Whitaker] was in the film for very little, when I actually saw it; it was much more about James McAvoy’s character,” Wilson remembered. “And I think that was a misconception of the public at large, when they were paying to see the movie. They thought it was starring Forest Whitaker, because of all the attention generated on his award nominations.”

“It is a very average film,” Gilchrist agreed. “But it had one great performance.”

On Sunday, Oscar viewers might be wondering the same as they hear the nominated names of Viggo Mortensen, Ruby Dee, Casey Affleck, Julie Christie, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Amy Ryan, Tommy Lee Jones, Marion Cotillard, Johnny Depp, Hal Holbrook and Cate Blanchett (twice!), each attending for a film that received no other major nods. But if it takes a great director to orchestrate a performance, and it takes great actors to help create a star’s performance, then what gives?

” ‘Monster’ was sort of a mediocre film,” Wilson recalled. “It was stunt casting, casting this gorgeous woman as a serial killer. And that’s what got [Oscar's] attention.”

Name one time you’ve ever heard someone say that Christina Ricci’s performance deserved a statuette. Even better: Name the director of “Monster.”

“It’s a popularity contest,” Gilchrist insisted, claiming that the Academy has far more to gain with a triumphant veteran (Christie, Holbrook) or household name (Depp) than they do with the likes of “Monster” director Patty Jenkins or forgotten “Queen” co-star Michael Sheen. “They want to give the most popular kid the award. They’re worried enough about being considered credible; they also want to be considered popular, cool and worthwhile. When ‘Monster’s Ball’ came out, Heath Ledger hadn’t broken into the level of credibility he’d later achieve with ‘Brokeback Mountain.’ ”

In some cases, maybe you would be better off watching an Oscar clip than sitting through the entire movie. After all, if Charlize Theron, Susan Sarandon, Paul Haggis and the film itself didn’t earn any serious Oscar talk, how good can “In the Valley of Elah” really be?

“I think Tommy Lee Jones, in ‘In the Valley of Elah,’ was incredible, and he absolutely deserves that nomination,” Wilson said. “However, I thought the film was extremely heavy-handed; Paul Haggis directed that, and I found it a very tedious story that was nothing new. It was a very bland movie.”

“But Josh Brolin was excellent in ‘American Gangster,’ ” Gilchrist added, saying that the Denzel Washington/ Russell Crowe movie should be remembered by future generations for a lot more than just Ruby Dee. “You talk about a movie that was overlooked in a lot of ways!”

“Julie Christie got nominated, and that’s the only nomination for the film,” Wilson said of the Alzheimers-theme drama “Away From Her.”

“That’s because there wasn’t a huge budget to gain it some visibility,” Gilchrist said of the flick, insisting that mediocrity would be the wrong assumption in this case. “Like we said before, there is that popularity-contest aspect of the Oscars, and familiarity is essential for them to nominate something.”

“Other actors, like Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts, are becoming like Wonder Bread,” Wilson said of the reasons why “Charlie Wilson’s War” is indeed mired in mediocrity, saved only by its sole Oscar-nominated performer. “[Their work] is opposed to real, gritty, true substance like Philip Seymour Hoffman. … Maybe they’re just too complacent because they’re ‘names.’ ”

” ‘Assassination of Jesse James’ is a really interesting, highly contested case,” Gilchrist said of the flick, which only received a nomination for Affleck. “I would say as many people love it as hate it, and I’m somehow in the middle. It’s too long, and it has a lot of problems — but his performance is undeniably brilliant.”

And then there’s the odd case of “Eastern Promises,” which only received one nomination — after months of being hyped as an Oscar heavyweight along the lines of those old-school classics.

“Naomi Watts is always excellent … but Viggo Mortensen was recognized over her, probably because he has so many more things to do in the film,” Wilson said. “But maybe if she’d had that naked knife fight, she would have been nominated.”

“Yeah,” Gilchrist grinned. “I would’ve definitely nominated her for that.”

If you don’t agree with Todd and Staci’s opinions on mediocrity vs. timelessness, perhaps you’ll find a new Hollywood conspiracy theory more to your liking: Rather than pouring all the love on four or five Oscar nominees that everyone will then run out to see, the Academy would rather give single nominations to three times that many films.

These days, if you want to be an educated Oscar viewer, it isn’t enough to see “No Country for Old Men” and “Juno”; you need to also pay for “Away From Her,” “The Savages,” “Sweeney Todd” and a dozen others. And that means a lot more money for Hollywood.

“Yeah, Harvey Weinstein is on the grassy knoll,” Wilson joked. “It’s all a conspiracy. … But I think it’s actually a good thing, that more movies are being nominated for little things.”

“Look, in the last few years, the case has been, ‘What can we get Will Smith to be in?’ ‘What can we get George Clooney to be in?’ ‘We have an idea for a movie, let’s figure out how to make it after we get the person,’ ” Gilchrist said. “That’s probably why we’re getting more nominations for films that aren’t getting nominated in other categories.”

“But great movies will continue to be great movies,” Wilson insisted, “whether or not they have a golden statuette to go with them.”

[Via Cinematical]