364 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(09/10/09 1:32am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Every new season should bring new story lines, but over the past few years, we keep hearing about the same issues from the television industry – declining ratings, hemorrhaging audiences and the lack of break-out content. But nearly two years removed from the start of the Writer’s Guild of America strike that disenfranchised audiences and crippled programming development for the 2008-09 season, this year’s slate of newbies marks a noticeable improvement over last year. And though ratings will continue to drop due to the excess of streaming applications and outlets available, the industry is coming around to alternative measuring metrics, meaning networks will be more reluctant to cancel shows. Thus, many of the main points in the television industry’s story remain, but there are indications of change. These five issues might re-write how the industry’s story plays out for years to come.• “The Jay Leno Show” and programming for the margins.The network powers-that-be have always been concerned with the bottom line, but in this economy cost-effective programming will take precedent over everything else, meaning more programming for the margins. Always ready to try anything innovative if it involves making money, NBC is out front with this initiative by renting out 10 p.m. to Jay Leno instead of paying for high-cost dramatic programming. No one expects Leno to be a ratings smash, but he does not have to be. Instead, if Leno’s new show hauls in a 2.0 rating in the 18-to-49 demographic (meaning 2 percent of that audience), is mildly entertaining and penetrates onto places like Twitter or Huffington Post, NBC will declare victory. That means other broadcast networks could take notice and suddenly 10 p.m. dramas become obsolete.• Cops, doctors, lawyers and family sitcoms. Somehow CBS survived last season’s ratings decline by continuing to introduce broad, traditional programming, and everyone else took notice. This season, we’ll see four new family sitcoms, three new medical dramas, two new police procedurals and one new legal drama. Oh, and don’t forget about the remakes, reboots or reimaginings, as eight new programs are based on other content. Sadly, this likely means less interesting and quality programming for intelligent audiences, though a handful of the programs found in these categories look solid. Yet, if many of these new shows take off, the broadcast networks will only continue to shove more doctors, cops and lawyers down our throats. • Cable’s reinserted dominance.Pay cable outlets like HBO and Showtime have long been known as the places for the best television, but HBO’s slump that began during the latter years of “The Sopranos” allowed basic cable’s USA, AMC and TNT to produce some amazing television. Now with HBO’s comeback in place due to the explosive success of “True Blood,” Showtime’s consistency with “Dexter” and the non-pay cable channels producing awesome content like USA’s “Burn Notice” or AMC’s “Mad Men,” almost all the great shows are back on cable. This will lead to smart audiences watching less vanilla broadcast network content, which will only push the broadcast networks to produce more vanilla content that appeals to those people who do watch. It’s a sick cycle, friends.• The “‘Dollhouse’ effect” and “‘Chuck’ corollary.” Last season, these two programs with feverish but small online fan bases somehow avoided cancellation even though in most years they would have been axed. Both programs were saved for different reasons, but created new “rules” that you can expect the industry to look at in the future. First, the “‘Dollhouse’ effect” says that if a show exists in a crappy time slot (in this case Fridays), but pulls in decent live ratings and fantastic DVR numbers and online streams, it could survive to a second season. Additionally, if the program is produced by a cult-friendly personality (like Joss Whedon) who is willing to do things on the cheap, its chances are even better. The “‘Chuck’ corollary” is slightly different. Here, a critically acclaimed show with decent ratings on a competitive night can survive if the network is struggling (like NBC) and does not want to cut one of its only good properties. Chances for survival increase if the online fanbase organizes a massive investment into one of the program’s sponsors (in this case, Subway) in hopes of influencing the sponsor to speak to the network about the show’s survival. Expect struggling programs to follow one of these methods.• Monday becomes Must-See-TV.Sure, Thursday is still jam-packed full of great programming, but Monday is quickly becoming a cluster of awesomeness. Each network is bringing the goods every hour. “House,” “How I Met Your Mother,” “Heroes” and “Dancing With the Stars” duke it out at 8 p.m.; “Gossip Girl,” “Big Bang Theory,” “Trauma” and “Lie to Me” compete in the 9 o’clock hour.; and “Castle,” “CSI: Miami” and “Leno” fight it out at 10 p.m. Talk about DVR overload. “Chuck” barely survived last year due to Monday’s craziness and “Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles” wasn’t so lucky. Expect a few solid shows to either move or be canceled because they can’t compete here.The television season is a marathon, but there’s no question every one of these issues will come up throughout. The story might be the same, but by the looks of things, it’s still damn interesting.
(09/10/09 1:29am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Though entertaining and intriguing during its first three seasons, season four of “Supernatural” pushed the show to a whole new level of excellence. No longer just “Buffy” with men, it is now one of the best genre programs in recent memory.Season four raised the stakes, introducing angels into the Winchester brothers’ lives and forcing a coming-apocalypse onto just the two of them. The fantastic writing plotted out a beautiful arc contrasting the changes between Sam (Jared Padelecki) and Dean (Jensen Ackles), as the once good-hearted Sam begins using demonic powers for what he thinks is good and the once-and-still-dickish Dean begins working with the angels to stop Lucifer’s rising.And yet as heavy as the main thread is, “Supernatural” was even better when it featured kooky tangential stories that combined a tremendous mix of dry humor, intertexuality and self-reflexivity. Not many programs feature a suicidal teddy bear and self-reflexive commentary about fans writing “slash” featuring the brothers.But that’s what makes “Supernatural” one of television’s best.
(09/07/09 2:09am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Jay Leno could change television forever. As sad as that sounds, it is the truth. When Leno’s new NBC program debuts later this month, media insiders will all be watching with vicious intent, and not because they love Leno’s middle-of-the-road “humor.”They will be watching because a smorgasbord of terrible decisions has led NBC to give Leno his own 10 p.m. program, whose success could alter television networks’ programming approach. Let’s flashback for a moment. The once-powerful NBC – you know, “Friends,” “Seinfeld” and “ER” – has struggled during the past few years.The only programs NBC has been able to develop into successes since 2004 are “The Office,” “30 Rock” and “Heroes.” That’s it. Three shows in five years. The Peacock Network’s big boss Jeff Zucker is known more for his pleas for “More!” than anything else. Zucker’s thought process usually goes like this: Audiences like one hour of “Biggest Loser?” Then they’ll love two hours of “Biggest Loser!” Tastemakers enjoy 30-minute episodes of “The Office?” They’ll just eat up “super-sized” episodes! Additionally, the moron in charge of developing new programs, Ben Silverman, never should have had the job in the first place and only got it because he was involved with the production company that adapted “The Office” for the United States. Again, Silverman took a similar approach to developing programming as Zucker does: You loved our “Office” redo, so you will feel the same about “Bionic Woman” or “Knight Rider” reboots! Meanwhile, NBC’s sister cable channels, USA and Bravo, have been developing one awesome show after another. Ratings for NBC continue to drop. Silverman ended up quitting this summer. They need help.That’s where Leno comes in. Back in 2004, NBC decided that Leno would probably want to retire in 2009, so they went ahead and gave Conan O’Brien “The Tonight Show.” But last year, rumblings began that Leno didn’t want to retire – because NBC brass intelligently never asked his plans in 2004 – and that ABC was courting him.Scrambling to keep Leno from leaving and making the program look even more dumb than they already do, Zucker and his group whipped up an idea that would not only solve the Leno problem, but also help NBC in another area – its 10 p.m. timeslots during the week. Thus, “The Jay Leno Show” was born.Leno’s new program fits NBC’s new programming mantra perfectly – programming for the margins. No longer is NBC going for big ratings (because they have no shot), but instead developing programming that will keep the bottom line safe. Of course, that was always a portion of the development process in television, but NBC is taking it to new lengths. Five hours of “Leno” will cost less than one hour of one scripted drama, which means NBC saves a crap load of money.And if Leno’s show is successful, based on NBC’s new metrics, TV will be changed forever. The way things are these days, every network is looking to save money while still being successful. If Leno proves renting out 10 p.m. to low-cost variety-style programming, all hell might break loose.
(09/03/09 1:22am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Most of us have been taught that some change is good. Apparently the writers of “House” were out sick during that lecture, because the lack of growth in the show’s characters finally grew grating during season five.Wilson is angry at House for indirectly killing his girlfriend and being a pain in the ass – for about two episodes. House and Cuddy kiss and both contemplate a relationship – for about two episodes. House takes methadone to improve his pain and his mood – for less than one episode. Sadly, due to poor plotting in other areas, like the Foreman-Thirteen pairing and a character’s death, the lack of change sticks out like a sore thumb.The special features here are solid, including a look at the program’s 100th effort, but season five has to be the show’s weakest effort. With House in the insane asylum leading into season six, let’s hope something changes – for more than three episodes.
(09/03/09 1:14am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>With Lex and Lana gone and Clark Kent (Tom Welling) still nowhere near
Superman-territory, an eighth season of “Smallville” didn’t seem
necessary.
But the departure of those cast members actually allowed the writers to
free up Clark from the drama, sending him to the Daily Planet and on
his way to becoming the Man of Steel, making season eight the program’s
best in years.
The introduction of uber-villian Doomsday upped the ante for a more
mature Clark, but also led to intriguing story lines for Allison Mack’s
Chloe, who has long been the show’s best performer.
The features chronicle the show’s changes fairly well and offer solid insights into production on a few commentaries.
Though the quality drops off in the season’s second half, year eight
brought fans numerous iconic moments, including Clark and Lois working
at the Planet together, comic-faves the Legion of Super Heroes and of
course, Doomsday.
For a show in its eighth year, you can’t get much better than that.
(09/01/09 1:32am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>After Ted Kennedy’s death last week, the media flooded the airwaves, interwebs and column inches with stories about how great of a man and senator he was. And though he clearly deserved all that kind of attention, the coverage did gloss over the more controversial parts of Kennedy’s life. You know, the proverbial elephant in the room – Chappaquiddick. While the media was busy lauding his ability to be at the forefront of almost every major issue in our country over the past 40 years, there wasn’t much about the incident where his actions led to the death of a woman in 1969. Pushing forward this skewed view of a famous individual after their death is something the media has gotten good at this summer, as we saw in the events following Michael Jackson’s death in June. After the King of Pop passed away, the swell of attention focused on the better (and earlier) parts of his life, not the controversy that surrounded him for the past 15 years – whether it be the accusations of sexual assault toward children, his obsession with plastic surgery or his generally nutty behavior.It is understandable to not want to speak ill of the dead, especially in relation to individuals who meant so much to our culture, but it has been a little surprising to see the media be so selective in these cases, especially after the two of them were covered so heinously during their lives.Kennedy and Jackson were certainly influential people who did a lot of great things for people in their own ways, but also found themselves amongst controversy. And in this day and age, where the media seemingly wants to take everyone to task for every little thing and knock them off the “celebrity” pedestal, the coverage of these two men is even more odd. On the other hand, maybe we should be thanking the media for overlooking the negative aspects of Kennedy and Jackson’s lives. When we lose people close to us, there is the tendency to only think about the positive effects they had on our lives. Disgruntled children forgive their parents, siblings reconcile and ultimately death can bring families closer together in celebration of the life lost. In this context, the way the media has treated the deaths of these two men who were probably “like family” to millions of people around the world almost makes sense. Almost everyone knows about Chappaquiddick. Almost everyone knows about Jacko’s ridiculously long list of issues. But we don’t have to bring those up to celebrate the other things – the great things – these two men accomplished.Kennedy and Jackson were complicated guys who made numerous mistakes (some of them deadly), but were ultimately pillars of our society, for better or worse. And it’s only fitting we honor them as such, however hypocritical and short-sighted it might be.
(08/27/09 1:18am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>The title’s half-right. Cobra Starship’s new effort is full of pedestrian tracks that are far from hot but are certainly messy. And in this instance, messy means awful.Though the act’s first two albums were far from revolutionary, they were full of fun jams. But here, Gabe Saporta and company settle for watered-downed radio bait, as evident by allowing “Gossip Girl” star Leighton Meester to guest-sing on “Good Girls Go Bad” and letting “Nice Guys Finish Last” sound almost exactly like Britney Spears’ “Womanizer.” And as boring as the music is, Saporta’s lyrics are 10-times worse. If a track’s not about the dance floor, it’s about him wanting to make a boo out of some scene slut. Cobra’s neon-drenched shtick might all be in jest – as is suggested in one of the only decent tracks, “You’re Not In On The Joke” – but it’s not funny. They must know we aren’t laughing with them, but at them.
(08/25/09 12:20am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Ever sat around and had an argument with your friends about who was more popular and had more power between Jon Meacham and Anna Wintour?Probably not, because, well, most of us don’t know who Meacham and Wintour are – editors of major magazines – and that’s fine.But a new Web site that cares about such things, Mediaite, popped up during the summer while you were working at that unpaid internship or becoming a member of the birther movement, proving that if there is one thing the media can cover well, it is themselves.Mediaite is one of the most seemingly pointless Web sites, yet if you are remotely interested in anything media, you will not be able to click away. Aside from collecting and opining on all media-related stories, Mediaite also features power rankings for all major forms of media. That’s right, we are now ranking journalists in the same way we rank professional sports teams.The rankings are supposedly compounded with all sorts of different metrics – including old-school measurements such as circulation or rating figures and new fangled ones like Twitter followers or Google Buzz – which almost makes it more over-the-top. Not only does Mediaite offer power rankings, but it actually has a complicated, time-consuming system of measuring them. Please.And though Mediaite is certainly an addictive Web site, mostly for the ridiculous power rankings alone, its presence seems to conflict with ideas of what journalism and the media should be doing.I hate to get on my journalistic and even moral high horse here, but why in the world does it matter what print editor is more powerful?The important thing for anyone working in the media should be to deliver the news in the most honest and informative way, in hopes of helping the audience. In most parts of the media, individuals should not be as worried about their image or Google Buzz as they should be with doing their job. The audience should be more interested in a story’s content, not who wrote or produced it.Now, I understand 100-percent true information and facts are not always disseminated to us in this ever-growing talking-head-let-me-yell-an-insane-opinion-as-loud-as-I-can-until-I-get-noticed culture. People in the media are worried about their image because that’s just how our society functions. And I also understand that Mediaite and its rankings were started without the interest or knowledge of probably all the people who make it onto the list. But when we have been given reports of journalism’s demise for 2 to 3 years now and thousands of people have lost their jobs, it seems crass to celebrate the people at the top. Though major journalists might not check their rankings regularly, you can bet someone does and e-mails it to them anyway. It’s never good to give the people craving attention more attention.Of course, that’s what I just did. You win, Mediaite.
(08/13/09 12:52am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>For better or worse, all that moviegoers want from their summer films is to be entertained, preferably with loud explosions. But this summer, we’ve been disappointed at almost every corner. “Star Trek” was fine, but other “sure-fire” hits like “Terminator: Salvation,” “Transformers 2,” “Angels and Demons” and that “Wolverine” movie were all pretty bad.So most of us wouldn’t expect anything else from what looked to be the worst of them all, “G.I. Joe.” But shockingly, if summer movies are all about mindless entertainment that’s actually fun to watch, “G.I. Joe” might be the best of them all.Weapons developer McCullen (Christopher Eccleston) creates nanomite nukes for the U.N. and then steals them back, almost killing soldiers Duke (Channing Tatum) and Ripcord (Marlon Wayans) to carry out an evil plan. A secret black-ops program, G.I. Joe invites Duke and Ripcord to join in the fight against McCullen and his team of baddies.Look, “Joe” is not a good film. The CGI is atrocious and laughable, the plot is as dumb as they come, and the acting is so rough that somehow Wayans comes out looking good. But damn if it is not a fun two hours. Unlike the mish-mash of metal in “Transformers 2,” the action sequences here are easy to follow and feature some pretty cool technology. And thankfully, each new battle (and that’s about every seven minutes) is different from the last; confrontations take place on all surfaces and with all sorts of toys.And although every other element of the film aside from the action is pretty bad, “G.I. Joe” seems in on the joke. The actors are having fun and not trying to make the material seem more important (of course it’s hard to make any scene feel important when Tatum and Sienna Miller are your leads, but still). And in general the film always feels like one based on a toy line. If Tatum’s Duke can ride a motorcycle in the rain while wearing a leather jacket and sunglasses and it doesn’t even stick out on the ridiculous scale, things are going well. That’s “G.I. Joe” in a nutshell.
(08/06/09 12:11am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Up until a few weeks ago, I had been avoiding HBO’s “True Blood” like a vampire avoids light. The first season of the show didn’t get a load of love from my favorite critics, the fans seemed too obnoxious on the Internet, and I’m oh so over the vampire craze. When the show gained momentum leading up to and so far into season two, I was almost sucked in. But do you want to know what finally got me to watch? Alan Ball. Ball is the executive producer of “True Blood,” and the “showrunner” as they say in the business. Though most people still tune in to certain programs because of the actors or even the content, there seems to be a growing emphasis on who runs things behind the scenes. Even among casual viewers, the names of major executive producers and showrunners are probably familiar; names like J.J. Abrams stick out. To me, this reflects a bit of a sea change in the industry in terms of how audiences have perceived content creation, specifically when comparing the film and TV industries. Before the past 10 to 15 years, typical audiences, cultural critics and really anyone else placed film above television when it came to relevance, importance or general taste. As heard in any media studies course, film was (and still is) long-known as more active, because you have to actually go to the theater to see a film in its first run. On the flip side, television is something that is just on while you’re folding towels at 4 o’clock in the afternoon – you don’t engage with it. In relation to those ideas, film has always been a place for “auteurs,” where a director’s vision is emphasized, respected and recognized as the driving force behind a feature, while in television, people sort of view it as a product that is more a collaborative effort. As Steven Spielberg, Alfred Hitchcock, Woody Allen, Francis Ford Coppola, Stanley Kubrick and Martin Scorsese are lauded for their “vision,” people, for a long time, either never thought about who brought television to them or just figured it was a bunch of hacks who couldn’t cut it in the film industry.But now, a series of changes have given those working behind the scenes in television more cultural clout. First of all, the first-week-box-office-driven film industry economy that looks only for a big number on those first three days disallows the artistic vision and effort put into films like audiences saw up until and through the 1970s. The oligopolistic studio system also boxes out up-and-comers who might have refreshing talent. This pushes more talented people toward television, which allows for longer-form stories to be told (hopefully) with attention to detail and character. And probably because all of these have happened, television has become more culturally renowned – which only permits more talented people to get into the industry instead of film. And thus, suddenly, a lot of the great “artists” of the last decade or so have actually been found in television, not film. In recent years, only a few, newer filmmakers come to mind as those who will be remembered for a long time – Peter Jackson, Christopher Nolan and Guillermo Del Toro – while older greats such as Allen, Scorsese, Spielberg, David Lynch and Quentin Tarantino trek on.But in television, there are a lot more producers/writers/showrunners who’ve been labeled “genius” or whatever hyperbolic adjective Variety uses that year: David Milch (“Deadwood”), Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse (“Lost”), Matthew Weiner (“Mad Men”), David Chase (“Sopranos”), Aaron Sorkin (“The West Wing”), David Simon (“The Wire”) and Ball, to name some.Maybe this is my admittedly biased opinion toward television, but it’s hard to deny how much more satisfying it is to watch characters develop during six years instead of two hours. And that’s why in the last decade, there have been more truly great TV dramas than film ones. When people remember this era, they’ll hopefully remember it was the time when television surpassed film in terms of quality, relevant and “important” programming.
(07/30/09 1:04am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>As the most dark, dense and dizzying film of 2009, “Watchmen” failed to catch on with audiences like the graphic novel it was based on. But the overwhelming love for the novel pushed director Zack Snyder into a difficult position: He could adapt it religiously, panel-for-panel, or take some liberties. In the end, Snyder did more of the former than the latter, but the film adaptation drew mixed reviews at best. Now comes Snyder’s cut of the film, full of 24 minutes of additional story, which pushes the film to more than three hours. For fans of the original material who were disappointed in the film, the new scenes add to the story somewhat significantly. We get more voice-over awesomeness from vigilante Rorschach (Jackie Earle Haley), a more fleshed-out Laurie (Malin Akerman) and a few other key scenes from the book rabid fans complained about.Unlike director’s cuts that are nothing more than marketing gimmicks by the studios in hopes we’ll buy the DVD, this one makes “Watchmen” feel more like a complete film. Characters are arced out better, and there are certainly more emotional payoffs.And just like the theatrical cut, this film is still (and even more so) complicated and confusing in spots, but that’s what makes it so damn good. “Watchmen” moves along at an awkward pace, with flashbacks and exposition flowing through the first half. But Snyder’s willingness to let it do so is great. Aside from Snyder’s extended cut, the disc features solid mini-documentaries about the production process, which show how much everyone involved in the project cared. Sadly, there is no commentary from Snyder, but there’ll be more editions of this film, because despite the box office returns, people will be watching this film for years to come.Really void of much action aside from a few hand-to-hand combat sequences, “Watchmen” is talky and full of heavy ideas about human nature and the gray area between right and wrong. The way the events unfold here might make you angry, they might confuse you – but at least they make you think, which you can’t say for 97 percent of films out there.
(07/30/09 12:42am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Once an off-the-mainstream event for “geeks,” Comic-Con has become an annual tentpole event for every prong of the entertainment industry, especially for film and TV productions. Though “old fans” say the Con is too mainstream and Hollywood-ized, no one can deny the importance it now has in terms of building buzz for a new geek-friendly production. Films like “Iron Man 2,” “New Moon” and “Avatar” took most of the headlines, but I find television to be more interesting. Thus, the following will be my analysis of the buzz created for certain programs based on what they showed at Comic-Con, with a 1-5 scale (5 being the buzziest). Obviously, I was not there to experience the event, but that’s what Twitter is for, right? “Lost”The TV show that made Comic-Con OK for TV productions, the “Lost” crew has had an excessively popular presence at each Con since before the show even began (the pilot screening there in 2004 was the first for live audiences), and this year was no different. People waited in line overnight to pack into the hall where the showrunners, Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse, fielded questions and dropped only a few hints about the final season: more Richard Alpert, Juliet and Faraday, less Dharma, and episodes that feel like season one. Plus, it looks like a new alternative-reality game was created with a new Web site – LostUniversity.com. Could have used another answer or two, though. Buzz meter 4, on reputation alone“Chuck” After a rousing meta-introduction from the show’s music group Jeffster, the “Chuck” panel dished out a few hints about its third season (the “Chuck-fu” we saw in the finale won’t work as planned; Chuck and Sarah are headed for rough waters), but you have to appreciate the entire cast coming out to thank the fans who started a fan campaign to buy from one of the program’s main sponsors – Subway – which legitimately helped it return for a third season. But the show not debuting until 2010 hurts the momentum built up here.Buzz meter 3“True Blood”The latest cult phenomenon made a pretty big splash at the Con, which is certainly helped by the fact that it is running new episodes every Sunday. Even among other vampire-related projects at the Con (the new “Twilight” flick “New Moon” and a CW show, “Vampire Diaries”), “True Blood” was noted to have the loudest audience around. And by revealing a real-life TruBlood drink to hit the stores soon and talking next season (hello, werewolves) it’s hard to deny this show’s appeal. Buzz meter 5“Smallville”The show might be creatively uneven and sometimes makes its audience feel like an abused dog that always returns to its owner obediently, but the Sunday morning “Smallville” panel has become a hallmark of the Con. More than 6,000 people packed in to see the whole cast, including the extremely press-resistant star Tom Welling, who before this had probably not done a show-related appearance since 2006. Plus, early production allowed the crew to present new footage, which included Welling’s Clark Kent in a prototype Superman uniform – “S” shield included. Whoa. Buzz meter 5, but surely the writers will piss it away by episode three“Heroes”Oh, how the mighty have fallen. After being the panel to attend the last few years, the “Heroes” crew couldn’t even decide if there would be a panel. When it did, it disappointed as much as the show has during the last two years. The big ideas presented for season four? Giving Claire (Hayden Panettiere) a lesbian relationship and Hiro a terminal disease.Buzz meter 0“Supernatural”In maybe the biggest announcement made at the Con, “Supernatural” showrunner Eric Kripke informed the audience that the long-standing plan to go only five seasons has been scrapped because the show is actually gaining in popularity. That news, along with Kripke’s plan to keep the story moving forward anyway, is music to “Supernatural” fans’ ears. Buzz meter 4And there you have it, folks. Those are some of the biggest winners and losers coming out of Comic-Con. Check out the blog (www.idsnews.com/blogs/weekendwatchers) for more Con analysis and more potshots at “Heroes.” Man, that show sucks.
(07/23/09 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>A week ago today, Emmy voters announced their yearly slate of nominations that break my TV-loving heart on an annual basis. Though the Emmys are supposed to honor the best that television has to offer (and they do for the most part), too often great programs are glossed over for those with an Emmy pedigree (read: on HBO).Nevertheless, I am not going to waste your time with another column complaining about something. Instead, why don’t we take a look at the biggest categories and do some way-too-early prognosticating? The full list of nominees can be found on the WEEKEND Watchers blog (idsnews.com/blogs/weekendwatchers) for your viewing pleasure, but here I’ll look at who should win and who will win in the most important categories.Outstanding Drama SeriesWILL WIN: “Mad Men”SHOULD WIN: “Mad Men”The prototypical “Emmy show” that is really about nothing but human suffering in a time when getting a divorce was taboo, “Mad Men” is too damn good to deny. It’s the critical darling, a simmering cultural phenomenon and probably one of the best 20 shows in TV history. Yeah, that’s good enough to win an Emmy. “Breaking Bad” and “Lost” are the other contenders.Outstanding Comedy SeriesWILL WIN: “30 Rock”SHOULD WIN: “How I Met Your Mother”The other Emmy darling, “30 Rock” is a near-lock to win its third straight Outstanding Comedy award, but the too-broad comedy and ridiculous amount of guest stars deployed in season three didn’t do it for me. And with “The Office” struggling and “Entourage” no longer funny, that leaves us “Mother,” which plays like “Friends” for guys with a brain. Outstanding Lead Actor, Drama SeriesWILL WIN: Jon Hamm, “Mad Men”SHOULD WIN: Jon Hamm, “Mad Men”Bryan Cranston (“Breaking Bad”) won last year and has a good shot to do so again, but Hamm’s somehow improved season two work deserves the award here. Shockingly, Hugh Laurie of “House” has never won, but with the category so packed with “more important” shows, his chances are getting slimmer. Outstanding Lead Actress, Drama SeriesWILL WIN: Glenn Close, “Damages”SHOULD WIN: Elizabeth Moss, “Mad Men”I really hate to keep lauding “Mad Men,” but in a mostly weak category, I’d love to see the much-improved Moss get the award. The legendary Glenn Close, last year’s winner, was just as good this season. If she wins, I don’t see anyone being upset. Sally Field (“Brothers and Sisters”) could win too, sadly.Outstanding Lead Actor, Comedy SeriesWILL WIN: Alec Baldwin, “30 Rock”SHOULD WIN: Alec Baldwin, “30 Rock”The most frustrating category around, with a few great performances not even nominated (Zachary Levi of “Chuck” the most glaring example) keeps things basically the way they were – Alec Baldwin winning easily. Steve Carell was fine this year, and Jim Parsons (“Big Bang Theory”) was really awesome, but his show isn’t quite buzzworthy enough. Not to discredit Baldwin, who was born to play his character.Outstanding Lead Actress, Comedy SeriesWILL WIN: Tina Fey, “30 Rock”SHOULD WIN: Toni Collette, “United States of Tara”Another really unappealing category, but I refuse to give the nod to the overexposed and possibly overrated Fey, who is fine, but not worthy of back-to-back wins. Thus, Collette rises above the rest of the scrap heap due to her multifaceted performance of a woman dealing with dissociative identity disorder. Without space-filling analysis, my thoughts on the Supporting categories:Outstanding Supporting Actor, Drama SeriesWILL WIN: Aaron Paul, “Breaking Bad”SHOULD WIN: Michael Emerson, “Lost”Outstanding Supporting Actress, Drama SeriesWILL WIN: Dianne Wiest, “In Treatment”SHOULD WIN: Rose Byrne, “Damages”Outstanding Supporting Actor, Comedy SeriesWILL WIN: Tracy Morgan, “30 Rock”SHOULD WIN: Neil Patrick Harris, “How I Met Your Mother”Outstanding Supporting Actress, Comedy SeriesWILL WIN: Amy Poehler, “Saturday Night Live”SHOULD WIN: Kristin Chenoweth, “Pushing Daisies”Come September, we can pull these out and I’ll look like a fool. But when “Mad Men” and “30 Rock” win most of their categories, remember I told you so.
(07/16/09 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>TV networks are stupid. Well, the people making the behind-the-scenes decisions at television networks are stupid. Though networks are probably taken to task too much by people like me, the decision-makers certainly screw up on a regular basis, whether it is by canceling a show that did not get its fair time to grow, or some scheduling faux pas – network brass cannot be trusted. But as dumb as most choices made by network management are, the recent name change of Sci Fi to Syfy will find its way to the top of any stupidest-moves-made-by-TV-network lists in the future.After announcing the name change months ago to loads of criticism, Syfy (I feel like a massive tool just typing that), a cable network owned by NBC Universal, made the switch official last week. The rationale for the more phonetic, almost text message-like name is two-fold.First (and I guess somewhat understandable) is the network did not want to be named after a genre that is printed on books, films, video games and all sorts of other media around the world – science fiction. Moreover, it is easier to obtain and protect trademarks with a name like Syfy than Sci Fi (the only intelligent point in this argument). Yeah that makes sense, NBC Universal. Maybe the History Channel should change its name, too. How does HsTry work for everyone?In relation to that, the brass also didn’t want the general public to think that the network only offered science fiction programming that appealed to, ahem, nerds. When discussing the rebranding process, Syfy’s president Dave Howe said they want people to know the network “isn’t just about aliens, space and the future.” Not to be a contrarian here, but let’s take a look at Syfy’s most famous original programs: “Battlestar Galactica” (space, robots), “Stargate” (wormholes, space-time travel) and the mini-series “Taken” (aliens). Though its newest programs (“Eureka,” “Caprica” and “Warehouse 13”) are a bit less science fiction they both deal with supernatural and science fiction elements. And even if they say this move is about the future and creating shows that don’t quite fit into that genre bracket, then what are we to make of Howe’s comments that he’s actively searching for a “space opera” to replace “Battlestar Galactica.” How does that click with his other statement?It doesn’t. And that’s the point. This is a marketing and business decision, as most are, but even that rationale might not clear up this muddy picture. Consider the following: Since 2002, Sci Fi grew in viewership each year, with 2008 being its best year on record. Average viewership was up 7 percent, making it the fifth-best cable network with adults 25-54 and the ninth among adults 18-49, according to the Nielsen ratings. So although the network can trot out “facts” like the increase in advertiser interest since the name-change announcements and its ability to increase global penetration with the new moniker, it seemed like Sci Fi was working just fine. Let us not forget that the way TV has been heading for a while now is powered by the narrow, targeted strategy. While the broadcast networks have stuck with trying to appeal to the broadest audience, cable networks have long gone after smaller, niche markets and it has worked, especially for Sci Fi. I guess in the end if Syfy continues to produce interesting programming, most fans won’t care about the name difference (though there is a significant online backlash to it). But the fact that the network heads are openly admitting the name stemmed from how cool it looks in logo form (they actually said “it looks like the Y’s are smiling at you!” ) and they launched it with a theme park in Manhattan just doesn’t instill much hope. But hey, at least we get to look at a logo in which “the letters just look like they’d be great big plush toys.”
(07/16/09 1:15am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Pop-punk used to mean something. Long before the neon-colored, flat-ironed, hyper-image-conscious bands ruled, bands like The Starting Line, Midtown and New Found Glory crafted tracks with soaring choruses about girls and the road, perfect for the summer. Though a few bands (early Fall Out Boy) have recaptured those sentiments, hopefully All Time Low’s “Nothing Personal” will make pop-punk real again.Filled with hook after hook, “Nothing Personal” is the quintessential car-windows-down, summer album. Each track provides a soundtrack to all the highs and lows of a teenage summer: optimism, (“Weightless”), love-induced mistakes (“Damned If I Do Ya (Damned If I Don’t),” “Too Much”) and the rumor-mill (“Sick Little Games,” “Keep The Change, You Filthy Animal”).And in a time where over-produced synth-focused music rules the scene, All Time Low successfully balance the pop and the punk here. The aforementioned “Keep The Change” and “Break Your Little Heart” are riff-heavy cuts New Found Glory could have written circa 2002 and perfect to bounce to a show. Meanwhile, “Walls” and “Damned If I Do Ya” are Top 40-ready with high production values and tremendous hooks powered by vocalist Alex Gaskarth’s solid vocals. The band put it all together in the album’s opener, “Weightless,” which is nothing short of pop-punk punk perfection. Buoyed by adrenaline-pumping guitar work from Jack Barakat, the track explodes as Gaskarth lkwsings his simple, yet direct lyrics: “Maybe it’s not my weekend, but it’s gonna be my year / And I’m so sick of watching minutes pass as I go nowhere / This is my reaction to everything I fear.” Hands down, this is the best pop-punk song since Fall Out Boy’s “Sugar, We’re Going Down.”Though the lyrics can sometimes be a little too simplistic (the aptly-titled “Too Much”) or downright stupid “Hello, Brooklyn”), every track here is certainly a joy to listen to. All Time Low have made the best pop-punk album of the year.
(07/16/09 12:49am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Pop-punk used to mean something. Long before the neon-colored, flat-ironed, hyper-image-conscious bands ruled, bands like The Starting Line, Midtown and New Found Glory crafted tracks with soaring choruses about girls and the road, perfect for the summer. Though a few bands (early Fall Out Boy) have recaptured those sentiments, hopefully All Time Low’s “Nothing Personal” will make pop-punk real again.Filled with hook after hook, “Nothing Personal” is the quintessential car-windows-down, summer album. Each track provides a soundtrack to all the highs and lows of a teenage summer: optimism, (“Weightless”), love-induced mistakes (“Damned If I Do Ya (Damned If I Don’t),” “Too Much”) and the rumor-mill (“Sick Little Games,” “Keep The Change, You Filthy Animal”).And in a time where over-produced synth-focused music rules the scene, All Time Low successfully balance the pop and the punk here. The aforementioned “Keep The Change” and “Break Your Little Heart” are riff-heavy cuts New Found Glory could have written circa 2002 and perfect to bounce to a show. Meanwhile, “Walls” and “Damned If I Do Ya” are Top 40-ready with high production values and tremendous hooks powered by vocalist Alex Gaskarth’s solid vocals. The band put it all together in the album’s opener, “Weightless,” which is nothing short of pop-punk punk perfection. Buoyed by adrenaline-pumping guitar work from Jack Barakat, the track explodes as Gaskarth lkwsings his simple, yet direct lyrics: “Maybe it’s not my weekend, but it’s gonna be my year / And I’m so sick of watching minutes pass as I go nowhere / This is my reaction to everything I fear.” Hands down, this is the best pop-punk song since Fall Out Boy’s “Sugar, We’re Going Down.”Though the lyrics can sometimes be a little too simplistic (the aptly-titled “Too Much”) or downright stupid “Hello, Brooklyn”), every track here is certainly a joy to listen to. All Time Low have made the best pop-punk album of the year.
(07/09/09 1:02am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Cable news sucks. That might seem like a fairly obvious statement to you, but honestly, I have only recently begun to notice this. Though I have always recognized the biases of CNN, Fox News, MSNBC and the lot, I still turned to them for up-to-date coverage of late-breaking news. At worst, I expected the cable news networks to adequately cover a breaking story. Not even all sides, but certainly provide me with the gist. But if you watch enough cable news these days, I think it is fairly obvious they can no longer even do that. After the election coverage had me partially skeptical, the last few months have driven the point home. And the recent coverage of Michael Jackson’s death happened to be the tipping point for me. I was watching CNN’s “The Situation Room” with Wolf Blitzer when the news broke that the King of Pop had been rushed to the hospital and was possibly not breathing. So obviously being the 24 hours-a-day news source it is, CNN brass gave the call to Wolf to jump into all Jacko, all the time – as they should, because it was a huge developing story at the time. But the subsequent events and CNN’s coverage (and other networks’, I’m sure) of those events really proved that for the most part, cable news can be really, really bad at times.At that point, most news outlets were reporting that Jacko had been taken to the hospital. That’s it. CNN trotted out some entertainment reporters, music journalists, people in Jackson’s circle to talk about the developing story, and that was all fine, for the most part. We were treated to the usual helicopter coverage of the hospital, some police cars putting up barricades – you know, the usual. But then things spiraled out of control for CNN. The following is a rough timeline of the events: About 5 p.m.: Gossip/tabloid/trash Web site TMZ.com reports Jackson has died. Obviously most people with a brain take this rumor with a grain of salt because of TMZ’s “reputation.” Thus, CNN refuses to acknowledge the rumor on-air. Wolf looks like he wishes it was still 1991 and Saddam Hussein were alive as he comments on Jacko’s penchant for wearing pajamas outside.Shortly after 6 p.m.: A more reputable source, the Los Angeles Times, confirms Jackson’s death. Now with a publication closer to the story acknowledging the death and TMZ (a source that is owned by the same parent company as CNN) standing strong, one would think CNN would be on board. Nope. Instead, Wolf informs us that the sources say he’s in a coma. Sanjay Gupta comes on the air so Wolf can get answers to questions like “What is a coma?” and “Can he even look in the mirror?”Sometime after 7 p.m.: After an hour of denying Jackson’s death and saying CNN couldn’t confirm it on its own while focusing on describing a heart attack to viewers and letting Wolf have his own private listening party to Jacko’s greatest hits, CNN finally announces the King of Pop is gone. Another death it forgot to report: Wolf Blitzer’s career.In the days after the death, critics have taken CNN to task for their confirmation of the death, and though I respect CNN’s right not to believe TMZ and need to be completely sure on a major event, this is a clear example of cable news’ failures. They have too much time to fill and thus we get Wolf Blitzer going through Michael Jackson’s catalog and helicopter shots. And when they’re too worried to cover their own tracks, viewers suffer even more.
(07/02/09 4:00pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>My prognostications on the upcoming television season’s schedule comes to an end this week, and I have saved arguably the worst for last. Though the CW certainly sucks, it is and will always be a third-rate network that was spawned from two second-rate networks. NBC’s fall from grace is much more sad, considering it is the oldest network around. NBC has been in a slump for a few years now, mostly because it has pushed horrible remakes of old shows in hopes name alone would get them to succeed (“Bionic Woman,” “Knight Rider”) and really has made a lot of questionable decisions in general (canceling “Journeyman,” not giving “Friday Night Lights” enough play and driving “The Office” into the ground). And yet, at the same time, the network still has five of the best shows on network television in “The Office,” “30 Rock,” “Southland,” “Friday Night Lights” and “Chuck.” But by almost canceling “Lights” and “Chuck,” NBC has shown its ineptitude. This season’s schedule is very, very promising, with one major question mark, but with NBC things are always at least interesting. New showsThe Peacock network has four legitimately interesting new shows on the slate. “Community,” a comedy starring Joel McHale of “The Soup” and Chevy friggin’ Chase looks fantastic, and it’s a shame that we’ve waited this long for a show based on community college. “Parenthood” is a family drama that is loosely based on the Ron Howard film of the same name, which seems lame on the surface because NBC has crashed and burned with remakes. However, one of television’s best writers, Jason Katims, is running the show over there and the excellent cast adds to my piqued interest.“Trauma” is an “ER” meets “Third Watch” type program that looks to have an excessive amount of explosions, but with money tight, it might be hard to keep the coolness factor high, especially if no one watches. Finally, “Day One,” a miniseries that will follow people trying to recoup after a world-altering event occurs, should be great because it has a short, one season shelf-life and therefore will not have a drawn-out plot.But the biggest news for NBC is that it has given Jay Leno the 10 p.m. hour every weeknight, in an attempt to keep Leno from going to ABC after they more or less forced him out and also to keep costs low (it’s obviously easier to do a talk show each night than pay $1 million per episode for a sci-fi drama). This is probably the ballsiest move a network has made in a long time, and even with low expectations, I can’t imagine it working the way NBC hopes.Old showsThe biggest hubbub leading up to the schedule announcements was whether “Chuck” would be picked up. The critical and fan favorite survived, but only after show sponsor Subway felt the rush of thousands of the show’s fans coming into their restaurants and voicing their love for both the show and the sponsor. Sadly, we won’t see the show until February 2010, but at least it’s coming back. NBC has also cut back the number of episodes that we’ll see of “Heroes,” which can only mean good things for all of us. The show is off the rails and will probably be canceled if the ratings for this run don’t at least stay steady. I think that’s a win for us.The other thing to note about NBC’s schedule is how it is divided so nicely, with many shows getting shorter orders than the normal 22 episodes. Though NBC takes a lot of risks, this is one I think will pay off. Shorter seasons mean three things: better, tighter writing, more shows survive and NBC saves money by not paying the production costs for another nine-plus episodes. Final analysisThough it has been down in the dumps, this could be the year NBC rebounds a bit. Its new stable of shows is very impressive, and if we aren’t barraged with too much Jay Leno garbage, I think things go well for the Peacock.
(06/24/09 11:39pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>The peak into next season rolls on with Fox, the network known for two things: canceling great shows and “American Idol.” Sadly, the network did not do much with its 2009-10 schedule to change that perception, as a few cult favorites met their unfair demise and the “Idol” effect continued to power Fox’s scheduling practices.However, though Fox has that unfriendly stigma, it is hard to knock its moves, as the network ended up with seasonlong ratings victories in all three major age demographics (18-49, 18-34 and 25-54) and the highest-rated program (“Idol”). Therefore, Fox didn’t have that many holes to fill in the schedule – but made a few interesting choices anyway.New showsOf all the groups of new shows, Fox’s stable seems to be the worst. On paper, only one of the newbies looks good, one could be solid and the rest will probably be canceled by Thanksgiving. The aforementioned bright spot is “Human Target,” a program loosely based on a DC comic about a bodyguard who takes on a different identity each week to protect people. The premise isn’t groundbreaking, and it will probably deviate far from the comic, but the cast is fantastic – including Mark Valley (“Fringe”), Chi McBride (“Pushing Daisies”) and Jackie Earle Haley (“Watchmen”). And television could always use another action-centric program. Sadly, the show won’t debut until 2010. “Glee” debuted this past spring when Fox was trying to test the waters of its potential, and most critical response was positive. I felt like that episode juggled tonal issues and some cliched writing, but I certainly saw many things I liked. It will be interesting to see how much patience the network has with it.The other new programs are really lame. So lame I’m not even going to mention them, moving on.Returning showsThis is where Fox made some noise. Even though the network had a lot of success this past season, it is seemingly willing to take risks and try for even more instead of sitting back with what it has. The biggest shocker came when Fox decided to bring back the buzzy but horribly rated “Dollhouse,” which it shifted to Fridays before it ever debuted in February and never gave a whole slew of support. But rabid critical and fan response, which always happens with a Joss Whedon product, to the latter arc of the season and Whedon’s assurance that he could produce the show on the cheap convinced Fox that it was better to deal with the devil they know than the one they do not. Alas, in the midst of the “Dollhouse” renewal, Fox decided to axe that program’s Friday night partner in ratings failure, “Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles,” which probably shot itself in the foot with an excruciatingly slow midseason arc, leaving its similarly rabid fan base with nothing but sorrow to accompany it. In other big scheduling news, Fox decided to push another run of the summer hit “So You Think You Can Dance” to the fall, giving it the same timeslots that “Idol” has from January through May. And although “Dance” won’t bring “Idol”-like numbers, and might even lose the night against the competition, this move helps Fox because the network won’t have to rearrange everything when “Idol” arrives. This way, shows that air on Tuesdays and Wednesdays will already be comfortable there and, in Fox’s mind, won’t lose viewers. Finally, Fox had the gumption to move its biggest new hit “Fringe” from its cozy spots behind “House” or “Idol” and into Thursdays at 9 p.m., only the most competitive time slot on network television, when it will go up against “Grey’s Anatomy,” “The Office,” “CSI” and “Supernatural.” Time will tell if “Fringe” is actually popular or just a recipient of megahits. Final analysisWith such a good year and an overall solid slate of programming, Fox didn’t have much to do. And so some would say that it simply switched up some of its schedule just to mix it up, but I can’t see a bad decision in the mix, even if the crop of new shows leaves a bit to be desired.
(06/18/09 12:32am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Our upfront analysis continues with the CW, the network I always refer to as short for “constantly worthless.”The CW brass sucks. The decisions made by head honcho Dawn Ostroff are constant reminders of how not to run a major television network, depending on your view of demographic targeting and branding. For me, targeting all your programming toward one small niche market is smart on the surface. At this point, the CW is never going to be that successful in terms of competition with the other big networks, so it might as well act like a cable network targeting a certain demographic. But the thing is, the media and critics are still going to think of the CW as a major network because all the money is coming from big players. So acting like a small cable outlet with major network capital should lead to big things – but it doesn’t for the CW as it continues to target young girls.New showsThe CW has three new shows on the fall schedule, each of which is hard to decipher from the next. As noted, the network is going for tween girls, and I guess the CW assumes that group likes to watch the same thing happen, just with slightly different-looking actors. If you loved “Gossip Girl,” you will love “The Beautiful Life,” according to the CW. If you loved the “90210” remake, you’ll be obsessed with the “Melrose Place” remake. And if you liked “Twilight,” you will go nutty for “Vampire Diaries.” Who told them that these were good ideas?“The Beautiful Life” follows young models who try to make their way through the treacherous fashion world while attempting to remain friends. What a mind-blowing premise! The program stars Mischa Barton, who is trying to get her career back on track after drinking her way off the cast of “The O.C.” a few years back. The problem for both her and us is that she can’t act. Meanwhile, “Vampire Diaries” is clearly an attempt to cash in on the “Twilight” craze, with two vampires fighting over one young high school girl. Fine, I can respect the cash grab – even if the book series the show is based on came out before “Twilight” – but the two male stars, Ian Somerhalder and Paul Wesley, are too old to be playing men going after a teenager – even if they are immortal.The “Melrose” remake will undoubtedly suck, just like the “90210” reboot did. Ashley Simpson-Wentz is a main cast member of the show; that probably tells you enough about its quality.Old showsThe big shocker is “Smallville” moving to Fridays. On the surface, this seems like one of the dumbest ideas ever. The show, entering year nine, is the network’s highest-rated program and has created a nice Thursday night when teamed with “Supernatural” since early 2006. Moving your highest-rated show to Fridays, the previously known network wasteland, seems VERY dumb.However, the CW has proven time and time again it doesn’t care about “Smallville,” or “Supernatural” either, really. The budget has reportedly been slashed dramatically throughout the past few seasons, and there is little promotion. Yet the network just expects the show’s fans to continue to come out. The CW even hired “Smallville’s” best writers to run the “Melrose Place” reboot. The program does not fit the demographic, is on its last leg and can still give the CW better Friday ratings than any show it had on there the past few years.Moreover, if it is to be believed that both “Smallville” and “Supernatural” are entering their final years (something I refuse to believe because the CW does not have a good enough development program to bring in two solid replacements), then it makes sense to put “Vampire Diaries” on Thursdays to slowly attempt to build new shows. And because “Vampire” and “Supernatural” connect slightly, I can buy that. I just don’t want to see “Smallville” and “Supernatural” come back in 2010-11 after being mistreated for four years.Final analysisIt’s hard to take the CW seriously. Most of its choices are dumb and too targeted at young girls that I just can’t understand it. At the rate it’s going, by 2011 we’ll see a “Dawson’s Creek” reboot, an “O.C.” re-imagining and a show about teenage strippers trying to find their way in the world.