The wildly successful book is what put backsides in theatre seats for "Marley & Me" for the most part, not it's 2-legged stars.

I'll jump on the "no Anniston on Mad Men" bandwagon.

1. Tom has a point about H'wood and ego generally;

2. Despite that, MW goes out of his way to give credit to others. Consider his complaint about the exclusion of MM cast members as presenters at the Emmys. Or the way in which the S1 DVDs (over which he also had control) mix commentary from cast members, directors, writers, and production folks like Janie Bryant and Dan Bishop. And that MW's own commentary mentions people like Joanna Bradley, etc.

3. It's tough to give much credit to blog commenters who assert that the S2 ratings were about the same S1, when they were significantly higher. At that link, you also discover:

Mad Men continues to deliver the strongest concentration of upscale Adults 25-54 than any other scripted original series on basic cable. Half (49%) of its Adults 25-54 viewers that tuned into season two have household incomes over $100K.

So some ego on MW's part would be entirely warranted — and I write that as someone who has previously written that MW's reported initial position (Sopranos-esque money) was more likely a bargaining stance than a realistic expectation.

What a bunch of garbage. In Hollywood (says someone talking from experience) ego often sells your idea mroe than the property itself. They want to act like humilty is important when all it means is your offering your neck to be stepped on. Without ego, how else do you expect a mediocre hack like Seth "Family Guy" MacFarlane got himself a 100 million dollar development deal? Not by talent.

When I saw her on Buffy, I knew I recognized her, and went back, looked up the name, and put it together with Natty Gann.

Love her.

And whatever happened to that John Cusack? :- )