Why the Original Isn't Always Better

Warning: this post is about anime and japanimation. If you just made the bad smell face, I hope you'll keep reading regardless. Maybe you'll develop a new appreciation for the legions of nerds (like me) who giggle and clap whenever we see giant-eyed, spiky-haired cartoons.

There are two types of anime (I'll use that term to mean both the genre of anime and the specific subset of japanimation) lovers out there: the adventurer and the purist. The adventurer watches anime because it's "cool". Adventurers love the sci-fi drama, the action, the aliens, and of course the robots in most popular anime; they also prefer the westernized rewrites and english-dubbed versions of the original Japanese anime shows. Favorite anime series for adventurers include: Robotech, Star Blazers, Mobile Suit Gundam, Ghost in the Shell, and Speed Racer. The purists watch anime because it is culturally unique and artistic. Purists prefer the dramatic anime that less-frequently involves aliens, robots, or global technology conspiracies and they definitely don't like the english-dubbed versions of the originals. Purist favorites include: Sailor Moon, Cowboy Bebop, Macross (all of them), and Tokko. I'm an adventurer. Though I mostly think the lack of originality in television and movies is lamentable at best and sometimes tragic, I think most of the altered, westernized versions of early anime are better than the originals. The purists just need to shut up.

During the 80's, it was popular for American production companies to purchase the rights for Japanese anime television shows, edit them, frequently rewrite the main dialog (sometimes completely re-tooling the plots and characters), and dub them into English. An entire generation of American kids was introduced to the unique visual and melodramatic stories in anime through these "new" versions of traditional anime, and we ate it up. In fact, I still talk about the gripping Star Blazers with some of my adult friends, and I will use it as an example of why I think the westernized versions of anime were frequently better.

Star Blazers was an Americanized version of the anime series Space Battleship Yamato - originally aired in Japan in 1974 and cancelled due to low ratings - that was one of a crop of cartoon and live-action shows that flooded television after the success of Star Wars. The original Yamato was about a future earth under attack by an alien civilization whose only hope of survival is the Japanese battleship Yamato, which has been recovered from the bottom of the Sea of Japan and redesigned as a spaceship. The original show was an allegory about Japanese insecurity and national identity with not-so-subtle nationalistic overtones; it even had a short flashback sequence showing the sinking of the original battleship by American bomber planes. You can guess who plays the hero role in the flashback. The American version understandably cut out that scene and downplayed the nationalistic aspects of the show in favor of alien vs. human space battles. And it was awesome! It had corny 70's waka-waka music, bell bottoms, laughable science, and gamine damsels in distress. The plots don't hold up too well from a 10-year-old audience to adulthood, but parts of it are still genius. The American voice actors were outstanding; I can still hear Captain Avatar lecturing in my head, and Queen Starsha's soft-spoken despair. And ... of course ... the theme song. If you saw the show, you are singing the theme right now. If you didn't see the show, listen to it here.

Purists called Star Blazers a corrupted knock-off. They bemoaned the lost sensibility and austerity of the Japanese voice actors, and the slightly changed story. What the purists don't realize is that Space Battleship Yamato kind of sucked until the Americans got their hands on it. Yes, I know that's circular reasoning, but seriously ... I've watched both. Trust me, the original was heavy-handed and had plot holes you could fly a space battleship through. The westernized version may be dumbed down a bit, but at least it's linear.

And of course there is the ever-maligned Robotech. This 1985 westernized anime series was actually an amalgamation of 3 different original Japanese series that were extremely popular in Japan: Super Dimension Fortress Macross, Super Dimension Cavalry Southern Cross, and Genesis Climber MOSPEADA. Each of these originals was pretty good (especially Macross), but Robotech took the best parts of each and combined them into one long-running series with three chapters. The story merging was actually quite genius and led to a complex mythos that none of the originals could even begin to contemplate. The series spawned books, toys, several animated movies, and talk of a live action film (rumors indicate Tobey Maguire is currently working on the live-action movie ... with some of the writers from Smallville! Yay!!). Since the westernized version completely bastardized the original story elements, the purists absolutely loathe Robotech, and don't hesitate to spew vitriolic fanboy venom all over the nerd blogs.

My point? Well, it was a long-time coming I realize, but the point is that the western entertainment machine is capable of doing high-quality remakes. Why, then, are all of the current crop of television and movie remakes so markedly terrible? Is the LA entertainment ladder encouraging only the schlock-meisters to climb to the top? That's my guess. I think LA is a lot like a big law firm ... only the tricky, inefficient jerkwads make it to the top. The supersmart do-gooders always end up broke and taking public interest cases. Yes - I just compared anime to public interest legal charities. I think I'll quit while I'm ahead ...

P.S. -

Erica Durance, I love you.

How "Lost" Found Its Way to the Greatest Finale in Television History

Mash, Nip Tuck, Newhart, Star Trek: The Next Generation, Cheers. All had great finales. Surprising, fun, emotional ... they had it all. However, I have never been as pleased or (frankly) moved by a series finale, or for that matter by any piece of scripted television, as I was by the Lost series finale.

I have been cynical about and critical of the last two seasons of Lost. I thought the story was going nowhere and that the characters had stopped developing. The writers had lost my faith, and as you know I respect quality writing over any other part of a television show. I kept watching because I wanted closure; I had bought-in to the story arc, and as with a promising book that drags on in the last few chapters I couldn't leave it unfinished. I considered it! But I'm immensely grateful that I didn't.

My main complaint with the last few seasons may seem familiar. I thought the mysteries of the island were turning out to be yet another stab at over-used good-vs.-evil metaphors, and that the ending of the story would leave me disappointed and unchallenged. Seriously! The good guy and the bad guy were even wearing white and black, respectively! C'mon!

The finale episode, "The End", changed my mind not only about the series, but about the capability of a television show to challenge even my cynical outlook. As usual, I have to credit the writers here, Damon Lindelof and Carleton Cuse (J.J. Abrams also has a writing credit for this episode, but I doubt he put pen to much paper). The richness of the story in the finale was something I did not expect from a scripted show on a major network in general, and from Lost in particular. Here are my thoughts about why the Lost finale is the greatest series finale in television history (bold words, I know!):

First, the episode made me happy. Before I started, I was expecting lots of banal reveals about the island, the Dharma Initiative, Jacob and the Man in Black, and maybe a final crossing over sequence (ironically I did get that one right). What I was given was a reminder that great drama is not about the setting ... it's not about the mystery ... it's not about special effects ... it's not even about the plot! No, great drama is about the characters; how they relate to each other, and how we relate to them. This finale unapologetically tells us that (in the words of Desmond) "what happens here [on the island] doesn't matter." That's right folks, everything that has drawn us in for 6 years, in truth, hasn't really mattered. The truth of the show has been happening right in front of us, without us really noticing. Jack and Kate, Hurley and Benjamin, Locke and Jack, Jin and Sun. The relationships are all that really mattered. The writers effectively slapped us upside the head and said, "Look at these people. They are the reasons you watch this show. They are what you care about. It's not about an island, or good vs. evil. It's about humans finding each other when they most need to be found themselves." The characters weren't "lost" on an island, they were simply "lost" ... until they found each other.

Second, the performances of the actors was simply unbelievable. I thought Matthew Fox and Evangeline Lily did particularly wonderful jobs here, but everyone laid it all on the table. They were all great. Some of my favorite moments included Hurley, as he takes on the protector mantle from Jack and has to say goodbye; when Jack first touches the sideways Kate at the concert and refuses to remember; and when Kate, Claire, and Charlie come together for Aaron's birth and remember together. I'm not ashamed to say I cried a bit each time. And, of course, the deus ex machina moment (subtly and wonderfully done) when Jack meets his dead father for a final moment of pure, raw relief. The range of emotion in the finale, from all the actors, was enough to impress anyone. I would be surprised if any of these fine actors ever does better.

Finally, the message of the finale. I'm sure there will be people who talk about the death, the rebirth, and the need to find your purpose before you "cross over" as messages in Lost. I'm not in that camp. I truly think the message here was all about the love and joy we all find in life every day from the other people in our lives while we are unfortunately caught up in the vagaries of our setting: our homes, our jobs, our hobbies, our islands. The fantasy of the show is that we will eventually find each and every person we need to live full and purposeful lives, whether we find them here or in some other reality. Normally, being the cynic I am, I roll my eyes and groan at heart-string schlock like that, but for some reason it worked beautifully in the Lost finale. As a result, I think today I will be more optimistic. Don't worry, I'm not going to invest lots of money in GM, or anything like that, but I'll put aside my misanthropic tendencies for a few days and see if I can live up to Jack's example. Or Locke's. Or Kate's, or even Charlie's!

I never expected to say this, but Lost ... thank you for reminding me that television can be surprising, and challenging, and wonderful. Now, if I could erase the last 20 years of reality programming all would be right with the world ...


P.S. -

Erica Durance, I love you.

How I Occasionally Get it Right

I'm nothing if not self-congratulatory. Remember when I pointed out my genius in predicting that 24 would not return for a 9th season? If no one else is going to pat me on the back, I have no problem giving my ownself mad props (I'm remarkably light on self-criticism, though. I leave that for you folks and the comments).

Haha, Frenchy! I'm back for more kudos to me! Back in March, I predicted that V would probably squeak through this season to return for a second season, even though it had an uphill slog due to some bad decisions on the part of ABC and it's genius scheduling personnel. Well, beloved readers, it seems like I lucked into a good call here. V will be back for another season, though it looks like we will have to wait until 2011 for new episodes after this season's run.

I know it's a little early, but I'm going to go ahead and predict that ABC will buy another 10-12 episodes of the show for 2011, but that will be the end of the show. It's viewership has steadily declined this year, but it managed to keep just enough buzz to survive. Unfortunately, while the writing started well and promised good quality, it has failed to deliver. The multiple plot lines have dragged on, the character motivation is on life support, and even the dialog written for Morena Baccarin, the creepy alien queen, has become pedestrian. With another long hiatus until the next season, the show will lose even more viewers, and I don't think ABC's marketing machine will be able to save it. Only spectacular writing could do that, and considering the show needed a writing bail-out this Spring but didn't get it ...?

If you are a V-lover, prepare yourself for a limited second season and then a curtain call. If a miracle happens and the show explodes into 2011 with gold-plated writing, I'll adjust my predictions. But don't hold your breath.

P.S. -

Erica Durance, I love you.

How to Pick a Bone With "Bones"

Maybe it's a result of getting older. Or maybe it's a symptom of the decline in overall tv programming quality available on the broadcast networks. Regardless of the cause, I find myself watching more crime shows than I would have a few years ago, and while it pains me to admit this: some of my favorites this year are, in fact, crime shows. The Mentalist, of course, has me hooked. Castle is also a fun show, though I haven't seen more than a few episodes yet; since it's been picked up for another season, I think I'll catch up this summer and jump into its Fall season with high expectations.

Given the dearth of solid one-hour dramas on broadcast tv, it's no surprise I've resorted to the well-sprung crime story to fill my copious tv time. Yet, I suspect this new penchant could be the result of something more Freudian because I'm also watching crime shows in my streaming Netflix/XBox list! Considering the thousands of available hours of decent tv available to stream, the fact that I've gone through 4 seasons of Bones is damning evidence that I might be growing up.

Don't panic, I won't be streaming episodes of Perry Mason or Hunter just yet. Having accepted my new crime drama exploration, though, I think it's time to simultaneously praise and complain about Bones.

The summary is this: I recommend Bones. As a crime drama it has pretty typical fare: weekly murder mysteries with a scientist/cop crime-solving duo as lead characters. The show manages to stay fresh by (paradoxically) using the Fox Network's winning formula of snarky, almost juvenile dialog coupled with mostly plausible hard science. It worked for X-Files, and it has worked for House, Fringe, and Bones as well. Fox seems to do this better than just about anyone else. CBS has a similar format with CSI, but that show fails to deliver the "fun" that Bones cranks out every week. As with any show that shines among its competitors, I credit the writers on Bones, and that means I have to credit the production company - 20th Century Fox Television - for making good choices when it comes to hiring good writers. A company like Alliance Atlantis Communications (the producers of CSI and its related spinoff CSI Miami), however, seems to prefer crank writers. Crank writers are the folks that can "crank out" dozens of episodes that are basically the same, following a paint-by-numbers television scheme. You can guess my feelings about these shows and crank writers.

Bones doesn't revel in the technical details like CSI. In fact, the great science in the show is secondary to the character interactions; I find myself really empathizing with the lab geeks in the show because their interpersonal dialog is only sometimes interrupted by talk of hydrocarbons and luminol. Ostensibly, the show is about a forensic anthropologist and her FBI partner, but the talented writers have made much more of the show. If you like the weekly murder format, you will find comfort in Bones, and if you demand more from your characters (more humanity, more weakness, more empathy) Bones delivers there too.

Now for the complaining. If you watch Bones, you will know exactly where I'm going with this. !!Spoiler Alert!! Skip to the next paragraph if you haven't seen the show and plan on watching it. Season 3 finale (Bones is currently in its 5th season and has been picked up for its sixth). Zack Addy. Serial Killer's Apprentice?! W... T... F...???

I can summarize the season 3 ending this way: Worst. Twist. Ever. In a general sense, I have nothing but good and laudable things to say about the writers on Bones, but sometimes when the mighty fall, they leave a gigantic crater of crap. The season 3 ending twist, while probably designed to write a character/actor out of the show with style, took ridiculously unbelievable to new heights of eye-rolling stupidity. I've trolled the interwebs for viewer comments, and without going into quotations and detail, I'll just say that I can't find anyone who thought tossing aside a beloved character this way was a good idea. I kept waiting for one of the main characters to wake up from a drug-induced hallucination, in fact I was begging for some trite do-over plot device when I started on season 4. No such luck.

And I must say, the show is weaker for the lack of [insert fired actor here]. The show hasn't completely succumbed to the 4th season curse (see e.g., Alias, 24, and West Wing), mostly thanks to the utterly compelling relationship between Angela and Hodgins, but I'm squinty with wariness now. In other words, I recommend the show, but I've got my eye on these writers. I'm hoping the 3rd season twist was a decision made at the production level that was forced on the writers. That won't excuse the writers for going along, but it at least gives me hope that they won't do it again. If they do - you'll see a future blog post right here, publicly retracting my recommendation. For now, however, give Bones a chance. And let me know what you think of the 3rd season twist.

P.S. -

Erica Durance, I love you.

Why They Are All the "Biggest Loser"

In a previous post, I tried to justify why I watch The Biggest Loser. I'm not proud of it, but my basic argument was that shows like The Biggest Loser are really just modern game shows; they're not as fundamentally despicable as the traditional reality shows like The Bachelor and The Real World. This is one of those moments where I demonstrate to everyone why this blog is called The Loaded Diaper. Because I was full of crap. I was rationalizing a TV habit that I'm not proud of.

Well friends, admitting that you have a problem is the first step in the recovery process, right? This week, after watching the most recent episode of The Biggest Loser, I've finally admitted that this show is not a game show. It's not a contest. It's not an uplifiting story of personal struggle or of overcoming obstacles. Let's be honest. Shows like The Biggest Loser, Extreme Makeover: Home Edition, Tough Love, and others that add an element of competition to the traditional reality show model have not improved the format. They haven't even changed the format. The Biggest Loser and its ilk have only made TV, and frankly our culture, less rich.

I know, I know ... this isn't funny. But who else is going to tell you that your habit of watching reality TV is strangling your ability to grow as a human? Huh? No one, that's who.

What made me change my mind? Here it is: I watched a complete episode of The Biggest Loser without fast-forwarding through the melodramatic parts, testing myself. If you watch the show, you know exactly what I'm talking about. Examples: Jillian or Bob "decide" that one of the participants is having a rough day in the gym, take this person outside, then poke and prod the contestant into an emotional breakdown - complete with synthesized heart-string progression chord muzak in the background; or how about the tear-streaked appeals when the contestants have to make their case every week that they should be able to stay at the ranch; or my personal favorite, the voice-over commentary from the participants describing every moment of a workout while trying to wring maximum drama out of problems that everyone faces on a daily basis. I usually fast-forward through this eye-rolling garbage, but I thought I'd try to endure the full-press Biggest Loser treatment this week.

Frankly, I was disgusted. I knew it was bad, but I don't think I truly appreciated how badly contrived and exploitative these shows are. I used to think The Learning Channel was TV's answer to the early 20th Century freak show, but I realize now it is actually NBC.

This week on The Biggest Loser, the show's producers brought back 2 previous winners to speak to the final 5 participants. If you ever bought into the illusion that this show actually helps people, this week your hopes were dashed. One of the returning winners has obviously worked hard and kept a lot of her weight off. The other returning winner gained almost all of his 217 pounds back, and was going through another cycle of workout/starvation to try and lose it again. It should be obvious there's a problem if you can't find two previous winners out of nine seasons that have managed to keep the weight off. Reality check: statistically, almost all of the contestants on this show will gain most, if not all, of their weight back when they leave the controlled environment of the ranch. This show isn't helping people, it's merely aggrandizing the exploitation of people who need serious long-term care.

Please, people! Can we decide as an enlightened culture that we no longer need to revel in the misery of others to find our entertainment? Haven't we evolved beyond gladiatorial displays of competition that eat away at our sense of community? All of the contestants on this show have lost, and so have we for watching. I, for one, have seen my last episode of The Biggest Loser.

Remember that anti-littering commercial with the Native American shaman who sheds a single tear when he sees a discarded plastic bottle on the roadside? After that, I felt guilty about shedding skin cells in public. We need another one of those campaigns ... maybe with Thomas Jefferson or Martin Luther King, Jr. packing up and moving to Canada after watching an episode of The Bachelorette.

P.S. -

Erica Durance, I love you.

How Brian's Vomit Brought Me Back to "Family Guy"

I used to be a Family Guy groupie. I was the annoying guy at the party who incessantly quoted Stewie, particularly the episode where he tries to collect a gambling debt from Brian: "Don't forget! Ehhhhh, you're not gonna forget!" I looked forward to every Sunday, when I knew I would be doubled over in hysterics, waiting for Peter to break into another refrain from "Bird is the Word."

You can imagine my lament, therefore, when Family Guy started to suck. Yep, it sucked. All year it has sucked. That means I've had a long series of un-funny Sundays. Props to the Bangles, but Sunday was definitely no longer my "funday".

For those of you who never really appreciated the unique Family Guy humor, you may wonder why it took so long for me to become inured to its admittedly offensive blend of raunch, wit, and overkill. I honestly don't know. I don't think the quality of Family Guy is measurably worse than it used to be. I think I'm just bored with the excruciatingly gross jokes. In particular, last week's episode "Brian and Stewie" made me consider taking the show out of Tivo rotation. In that episode, Stewie and Brian get caught in a bank vault over the weekend, and have to entertain/sustain each other (and ostensibly me) for an extended 40 minute episode. It was horrible. I don't necessarily think there is a "line" that can be crossed with offensive comedy - even defining such a line makes it fodder for comedy, doesn't it? - but opening an episode with Brian eating the contents of Stewie's dirty diaper was a bit much even for me. And it wasn't even funny. Maybe that's why I'm bored with the show ... it's still extremely disgusting, but it's no longer funny.

That is ... I was bored until this week's episode, "Glen's Dad", in which Glen's war hero dad undergoes a sex change, yadda yadda, Brian ends up sleeping with shim. The episode was decidedly unfunny right up until Brian discovers the truth about "Ida." Stewie breaks the news to him, and Brian goes through a little cat-vomit seizure (you know exactly what I'm talking about), then proceeds to projectile vomit for at least 20 seconds straight. The detail here is what had me rolling .... the steady accumulation of vomit ... Stewie backing away in horror ... the mutual screams of terror from both Stewie and Brian when he finishes. I laughed so hard, I had trouble breathing for a solid minute.

While the series is still on my probation list, I won't take it off the Tivo this week. Hopefully, the season so far has just been a dry spell, and the oasis of Brian's vomit will lead to a lush wonderland of Stewie quotes for my party list. Hopefully.

P.S. -

Erica Durance, I love you.

What I've Been Trying to Say ...

On occasion I have difficulty putting my thoughts together in a coherent, well-packaged message that informs and entertains. Sort of like that sentence. Fortunately for me (and for you), everything I think is the spawn of some other person's original idea - that's probably why my only humor comes from quoting John Hughes movies - and sometimes I am lucky enough to have access to those original ideas.

A reader sent me a link recently to a short article (really just a lengthy answer to a complex question) written by a TV executive about why networks do not provide more online access to popular TV shows.

I recommend anyone who enjoys television should read this brief essay. The executive does a nice job of explaining why you can't just go to www.nbc.com and download an entire season of The Apprentice to your iPod. I find his explanation more complete and easier to understand than most of the information I've seen on this issue, but you know I have some comments. Read the essay, and also check out the first three comments, then come back ....

So? What did you think? Yeah, I don't care. Here's what I think:

1. While the information Mr. Engler lays out is correct, I think he leaves out one important detail. Namely, that American networks have most of the bargaining power in the interaction between production studios and tv networks, at least until a show becomes a huge hit. That means that a network like CBS or SyFy can basically dictate how a show will be presented on the network - including time slots, lead-ins, re-runs, and advertisers. Long time readers (you know, those of you who've been around since March, 2010) will remember this post about programs that were canceled for various reasons, and how Fox has a tendency to kill its shows by mucking around with the air times. Thus, I find Mr. Engler's not-so-subtle "Don't blame us!" subtext a bit disingenuous. I'm confident that if SyFy wanted to show lots of streaming content, they could bully their production studios into releasing the rights. Of course, that would be a lose-lose situation for both the network and the production studio. The network would lose lucrative advertising revenue from lost viewership (don't kid yourself into thinking online advertisers would make up for it. If you think that, you probably bought a lot of stock in pets.com back in 2000), and the production studio would lose licensing revenue. Mr. Engler is dead-on about that;

2. Check out comment # 3 for Mr. Engler's article. Whoever left this comment (like me) is brilliant and absolutely correct. Television networks, both broadcast and cable, are operating under a 50 year old business model that can't keep up with technology trends. Some of you who understand how the Nielsen rating system works will instantly get this: we've been torturing tv metrics and revenue models since VHS came onto the scene in order to give advertisers and producers bad information about viewership habits. Why? So the bean-counters can prevent the collapse of the tv business model. Like commenter # 3, however, I think the long-delayed collapse is now inevitable. Networks and producers will be forced to adapt to streaming technology and the more diverse viewing habits of modern tv watchers. For more, see most of my previous posts, including this one about how we will be watching tv in the next decade; and

3. Predictably, I think Apple has a few lessons for the networks. Soon, production studios will learn that with a little savvy deal-making, they can make more money off their shows by streaming them direct to viewers. Apple saw this coming with music and got ahead of the blast zone by developing iTunes. Now Apple gets a cut from each artist without having to develop any content at all. In essence, Apple is an aggregate-or of content. Sort of like a tv network in a streaming format, without the advertisers. I wonder if anyone at Fox or HBO is paying attention to this trend? I would bet they are, and if the major networks don't have teams of business analysts trying to figure out how to set up their own streaming aggregate format - they're idiots. Idiots with very short business life-spans. Once again (I should be getting royalties for this), I'm going to plug Netflix. Can I call this? Yep ... coming soon to an XBox or Playstation near you ... The Netflix Network, with exclusive, original content. Deadwood season 4, anyone?


P.S.

Erica Durance, I love you.

Why It Will Happen Eventually

Because this is America, people! "What," you may ask, "will happen?" Friends, I am talking about something no less spectacular than the ultimate reveal. No, it isn't the government's admission that we have alien bodies at Area 51, or the secret videos of a CIA operative shooting Kennedy from the grassy knoll. Something much more shocking will happen soon. Very soon, an image of the Prophet Muhhamad will be shown on American television.

In case you haven't been paying attention for the last half decade, journalists, satirists, writers, and other media illuminati have been held hostage by Islamic fundamentalists who believe that displaying the image of Muhhamad is blasphemy, punishable by vilification and death in some cases. The controversy really heated up with the publication of a series of political cartoons in the Dutch paper Jyllands-Posten in 2005. The cartoons led to riots and protests in dozens of countries, possibly contributing to the deaths of up to 100 people. Since then, the purveyors of print, television, and online media have been proactively censoring any attempts to show an image of Muhhamad.

Hold on to your socks, however, because the paragons of social commentary Matt Stone and Trey Parker, creators of South Park, have launched new slings and arrows in this issue. Just when you think a controversy is dead, and that truth and reason are the casualties, leave it to South Park to breathe a little life back into those two venerable seniors.

A few weeks ago, South Park aired an episode (leading to a sequel episode the following week), in which every famous person that has ever been insulted by the denizens of South Park band together under the leadership of Tom Cruise to hold the town hostage. The ransom? They want to steal the "mojo" of Muhhamad that enables him to avoid ridicule, and they want the South Park boys to bring Muhhamad to their Legion of Doom headquarters. Long term fans of South Park will remember that the South Park boys have a special relationship with Muhhamad (and the other major religious leaders of the world, including Jesus and Joseph Smith) dating back to the early seasons of the show. Knowing that Comedy Central would no doubt censor any images of Muhhamad, Trey and Matt go to SouthParkian extremes to ridicule this hypocrisy, in ultimately hilarious ways. The plot has Muhhamad stuck in a U-Haul, clothed in a football mascot bear suit, and eventually blacked out completely by a large "censored" bar. Of course, I don't think I need to explain why this is hypocrisy. Comedy Central didn't have any problem showing Jesus decapitating Roman Catholic priests with his boomerang-halo, and they didn't have a problem showing Joseph Smith (founder of the Mormon faith) while playing a song in the background that trulled "dumb dumb dumb-dumb-dumb!", or for that matter showing another character defecating on the bible. But they can't show a cartoon version of Muhhamad? In any pose? I also won't point out that South Park has already shown Muhhamad in earlier seasons, and no one batted an eyelash. Have a few riots in Spain and the Netherlands, however, and suddenly the fearless American media is utterly paralyzed.

It sounds bad, but I'm convinced that our creative media are fighting back in traditionally American style: first we roll over like bitches, then we turn around and shoot you with very big guns. In this case, South Park was our first drone strike. And now we're bringing in the Navy. Who is the Navy here? The Good Wife, of course!

This week, The Good Wife came perilously close to showing another cartoon version of Muhhamad, barely obscured by a shoulder. I actually held my breath. While it sounds like more of the same obfuscation, you have to think about it in perspective. You might expect a show like South Park or Saturday Night Live to be ground zero in this ideological battleground, but The Good Wife?! This is a show on the most conservative (in terms of management) of the Big 4 networks. It's audience is also relatively staid and unpolitical. The fact that the writers of The Good Wife are sticking their toes into this lake of fire and brimstone should tell you something. Our entertainers and satirists aren't a bunch of crybabies after all. They're just cautious. But caution was just a delay tactic. I'm convinced we will be seeing an image of Muhhamad on TV, or in a magazine perhaps, within the next year.

If you never imagined a connection between South Park and The Good Wife, perhaps its time to give it some thought. What exactly do they have in common? The obvious, of course ... they're both Made In America. Who knows? Maybe this will lead to a resurgence of genre shows that are actually produced in the States instead of Vancouver! One can only hope ....

P.S. -

Erica Durance, I love you

Why I Miss 1984

I'm not talking about the Orwellian future/past. And I'm not talking about the Van Halen album (although that was awesome, and tangentially related now that I think about it). I miss 1984 because it was the pinnacle, and also the beginning of the end (sort of the definition of pinnacle), of MTV as a music channel.

I am old enough to remember that there was a time when music videos were relegated to clips of the Jacksons on the Ed Sullivan show, and a few groundbreaking novella videos on Friday Night Videos (an NBC show that actually ran for almost 20 years). Anyone remember the song "Self Control" by Laura Branigan that became a hit only because it was on Friday Night Videos? No? Meh ...

MTV had actually been on the air since 1981, but it took several years for all of the local cable providers to jump on board the future train (not to be confused with the Soul Train). When they did, tweens and teens all over the world rejoiced at the unparalleled musical expression that was MTV. And that's what I miss ... the music. Remember when MTV had music videos all day long? The Cars, Dire Straits, Michael Jackson, ZZ Top. If you are visualizing the videos that went along with these artists - you know exactly what I'm talking about.

Unfortunately, MTV started its decline with shows like Remote Control, Singled Out and the show that started the reality TV show plague, The Real World. Now, videos are relegated to 30 minute time slots when no one is watching, except maybe Total Request Live before Carson Daly became a victim of anorexic ridiculousness.

I haven't watched MTV in probably a decade, but I recently caught 5 minutes of a show called Date My Mom when I needed to kill 5 minutes. I have one comment that sums up my reaction: WTF. No question mark, you will note. I'm not wondering, "what the ....?" I'm expressing a complete state of shock about how low we have sunk. In Date My Mom, young men go out with older women, not to start a romance, but to figure out whether the boys want to go out with the daughters of the older women. Basically, it's a show about two people meeting for a business deal, where the mother is selling her daughter's (long absent, no doubt) virginity. I only watched it for 5 minutes, but I had no trouble figuring out what was going on, and it was disturbing. Disturbing for someone who watched Faces of Death as a child and fell asleep. What does that tell you? I've also heard about, and read about, another show called My Super Sweet 16, and what I have heard and read makes me think we should stop worrying about competing with the Chinese and start learning Mandarin.

Am I just one of those young people who turned old? Will I start yelling at kids to turn down their infernal "rock and roll music" soon? I can't be that disconnected, can I? Ah, 1984 ... I miss you.

P.S. -

Erica Durance, I love you.

How "Stargate Universe" is Getting It Right

I know, I know ... genre show this, genre show that, I'm becoming a one-trick pony. But good scifi is just so ... well ... good. Of course, bad scifi is really, really bad. There's not much in between, which is why I'm starting to worry about V. More on that later.

One genre show that's getting it right so far is Stargate Universe. The premise of the show is a tried-and-true format for genre dramas that seems to ring the bell of all the nerd kings out there in couch potato land. A group of researchers and soldiers (the group can vary) get thrown out into the vastness of the unknown (space, alien planet, alternate dimension, etc) with no support from home. The show progresses as the group tries to get home and explores the unknown along the way. I call it the "Lost Souls" concept. Previous successes in this vein have been Lost in Space, Sliders, and Star Trek Voyager. Not to mention the best genre show ever, Farscape.

We haven't had one of these since Farscape was so brutally and callously canceled, but Stargate Universe is filling the bill nicely. This time around, the Lost Souls get "stargated" (a new word for the lexicon) into an interstellar spaceship during an evacuation emergency, and it turns out the alien spaceship is on the other side of the galaxy from Earth and there's no return ticket. Nor do they have any control over the ship, or for that matter any supplies. It all sounds very unoriginal, but here's why Stargate Universe is good stuff:

1. The writing. Do I have to say this for every good show? Writing is key, people! And the writers here are doing well. Each episode takes a seemingly simple problem like, oh I don't know, finding water, and turns it into high drama. That's not easy to do. For a genre show, Stargate Universe is relying less on aliens and space battles, and more on basic human interactions and the stories that naturally arise. The spaceship is just a backdrop for the very well-delivered plots.

2. The diverging interests of the two main protagonists. Don't get glazed eyes ... I just couldn't think of a better way to say it. The Lost Souls in this show have split into two factions: the military and the science geeks. Each faction has their own erstwhile leader, and each leader has different motivations and goals. Part of you wants to hate the science guy, but the freedom loving American in you wants the military dictatorship to be overthrown. It's a Catch 22, and it keeps the show on the edge every week without getting stale.

3. Not relying too heavily on the Stargate mythos. Since the show is driven by ordinary human interactions, they don't have to lean on tired, worn-out formula plots that all too often plague a genre show. That's the beauty of the Lost Souls program. It separates the show and its characters from the familiar and established characters of the mythos, and it frees the writers from the burden of continuity that has plagued "sequel" series like Star Trek: Deep Space Nine or Stargate Atlantis. Just ask Ben Browder and Claudia Black, who stepped into the last season of Stargate SG1 (the original Stargate series that was itself a continuation of the movie) just as the audience was checking out. You can't just add new characters to a show and expect to revitalize it; you need a new concept, and the Lost Souls concept is remarkably liberating and fresh.

So far, these forces have combined for a highly entertaining Friday night show. Even if you're not into the scifi stuff (you will be if you keep reading this blog), you might actually like Stargate Universe. Give it a try and let me know what you think ...

P.S. -

Erica Durance, I love you.

What's Missing from Most TV Shows

I was watching Lost this week (actually, it was last week's episode - it took me a while to get to it), and after the first three minute segment, the ominous title sequence drifted towards me like it always does. If you're a Lost-o-phile, you know what I'm talking about. That one word drifts out of the blackness; it's creepy and ... well ... brief. This week, however, instead of creeping me out the opening sequence pushed a button in my head and I started thinking about all of the other shows that I really like this season: The Good Wife, The Mentalist, Stargate: Universe, Breaking Bad. They all have something in common, or rather they all lack something in common: a theme song.

Admittedly, all of these shows have some kind of acoustic introduction. A "riff", if you will, and they do set the mood. Those 1 or 2 bars of synthesized "wah-wah" can do a pretty good job of setting the tone for the show, but now that I've recognized a pattern I feel a little cheated. I don't watch Law & Order, but it's hard to live in the States and not instantly recognize its two-tone intro. Since I hate that show with the red-hot heat of a thousand suns, I'm going to blame this theme-song-attrition on the longest-running bad show of all time. Is this a money-saving technique? Are producers really going to make a difference in a show's running budget by not paying a composer for 45 seconds of mood music? I don't think so. In fact, there are a few great shows that do have theme songs, though they are becoming fewer and fewer.

Smallville (hooray Smallville!) has an uber-appropriate theme song: Remy Zero's Somebody Save Me, and it is hard to imagine how they could have done better. When I watch old seasons on DVD, I don't skip the title menu like other shows because I love that song and it gets me jazzed-up (yes, I said that) to watch the show. South Park is another show that has a theme show well-matched to the series: Primus's South Park Theme. It's goofy and precocious, like all Primus songs, and it's perfect for the show. Not surprisingly, a lot of reality shows like The Biggest Loser and Extreme Makeover: Home Edition have theme songs, usually the pop song, inspirational type. Apart from that there are no real standouts in the theme song category. Why not?

One argument could be that a theme song takes away from a drama's gravitas. Hmmm .... I can understand that, but anyone who takes this seriously has never seen Hill Street Blues or The Sopranos. Fantastic theme songs for both, and if anything they add to the show's dramatic appeal. Another argument can be that a bad theme song can ruin a show almost as quickly as Ted McGinley. Now we're getting somewhere. You genre show fans will remember how the laughable theme song to Star Trek: Enterprise made you change the channel for 60 seconds. Yet, though a bad show is only made worse by a bad theme song, a good show will easily overcome a lame theme, so I don't buy this argument either.

My suspicion is that the slow death of the theme song has more to do with technology than purse strings or Law & Order. I think one of my favorite gadgets, Tivo, is strangling the theme song. Think about it: what do you do once the title sequence for your favorite show comes up? Yep ... you fast-forward. Even the really good theme songs don't make you sit there and patiently await the first segment. In fact, you've probably become an expert at hopping over the title sequence, the first commercials, and network previews, stopping at exactly the right moment so that the show begins precisely when you hit "play". Folks, we are putting a lot of composers out of work. What producer is going to pay some brilliant musician $50,000 for a piece of music that no one will ever hear? I certainly wouldn't.

Thus, the days of Henry Mancini, Jack Elliott, and Mike Post are gone. I fear they will never return. I knew Tivo was a game changer, but this week I'm a little sad about it.

On a happy note, we do have a refuge for great theme songs at the moment. Apparently, HBO and Showtime are still invested in the art of the theme song. Deadwood, Dexter, Entourage, The Tudors, and my contemporary favorite Dead Like Me, all have excellent and well-matched theme songs. Another win for cable over network television.

Finally, a few recommendations. If you want to hear some really great theme songs, go to Youtube and check out some of my favorites: Hill Street Blues, Dead Like Me, Night Court, Smallville, The Muppet Show, and the best theme song of all time ... Johnny Quest.

P.S. -

Erica Durance, I love you.

Why "The Good Wife" is So Good

It isn't because she bakes like your gramma and "keeps her dang mouth shut", that's for sure. The Good Wife is a great show for two basic reasons: Julianna Margulies and talented writers.

First, let me give my usual disclaimers. I am still a little conflicted about having 2 CBS prime time dramas in my top 10 for this season. Like many of you (I'm sure), I grew up believing CBS was the network that really, really old people watched. Cool, hip, young people (like me and my other 8 year old friends) watched NBC. Cheers and St. Elsewhere, Magnum P.I. and Knight Rider. Seriously, it was NBC's Golden Age ... long before must-see TV. And I still have a bad taste in my mouth about All in the Family. I don't care how many people tell you what a great show it was; it was a sitcom about an anti-semitic, misogynistic jackass. A sitcom!! I may have been only 5, but even I recognized there was something wrong about that. Bad call, CBS.

But ... respect where respect is due. CBS has managed to turn the ship around. Now, they are second only to Fox in capturing young audiences. Largely, that's due to their CSI franchise (which I loathe, by the way ... die, Jerry Bruckheimer!!), but their success owes much to their savvy choices for mid-week prime time dramas. I've already mentioned The Mentalist - now in its second season - in a previous post, and I'm sure I'll get to it again. For now let's just say it is one of my favorites. The other show that needs your respect is The Good Wife, the newest homerun from CBS's evening lineup, and when I saw the first promos (no doubt during The Mentalist) I was skeptical to say the least.

The first promos did not do the show justice. In my opinion, they hinted at a show that was based, rather obviously, on the tragic life of Dena McGreevy whose cheating husband - NJ Governor Jim McGreevy - announced to the world that he had been sleeping with one of his young male cabinet members. The announcement was made at a macabre press conference, with wife Dena standing at his side looking like a wounded child. The promos for The Good Wife were an eye-rolling knockoff of that scene. Thus, I was initially completely uninterested in this show. If there's anything that will turn me off a drama, it's a complete lack of originality. The Good Wife, it seemed to me, promised nothing more than lame, movie-of-the-week writing that would likely fizzle out after 8 or 9 episodes. Friends ... I was wrong.

I missed the first 4 episodes because I didn't even bother to put it in my Tivo list, but I caught half an episode during a rare night of channel surfing and I was instantly hooked. And here's why:

Juliana Margulies. I was never really a fan of Ms. Margulies when she was on ER. I found her character subordinate and dull, and I wasn't sorry to see her leave late in the show's run. I now realize that it was the character I didn't like, because I am thoroughly impressed by her performance on The Good Wife. The show does have some of the knockoff political wife story, a la Dena McGreevy, but that's really a very small part of the show. Truly, this is a show about a woman who finds that, after an adult life dedicated to supporting her husband and his career, she wants more out of life. The underpinning is a legal drama (which I usually can't stand, being a real-life lawyer and all), and Julianna Margulies is spot-on as a new associate competing for professional points at a faltering law firm. Since I never really paid much attention to her career, I can't tell you if she has always been a great actor who has gone unrecognized, or if she has just gotten that much better over time. Regardless, if she doesn't win an Emmy, there is no justice in this world. Hyperbole? Nope. Also, I don't remember her being drop-dead gorgeous on ER. And that was 15 year ago. Well played, Ms. Margulies.

Not inconsequentially, the writing for this show is also top-notch. It certainly isn't the most creative writing in the business, but that's okay. It's a legal drama, so you can't get too creative without changing the premise of the show. Our legal system has rules and constraints, and though TV producers love to pretend it's exciting stuff, it mostly isn't. Getting too creative, therefore, would require inventing a new legal system. And that's not as easy as it sounds ... ask the EU (wassup, Brussels?!). The writers do, however, manage to show new angles. The most recent episode of the show, "Doubt", is hands-down the most cleverly written one-hour legal drama I've ever seen. And I used to watch LA Law, folks; I've seen it all. The show happens in two different perspectives. One is the jury, deliberating a murder case after all evidence has been entered. The second is the perspective of the defense (Julianna Margulies' side) during the evidence portion of the trial, fighting a losing battle for an innocent client. During the show, the two perspectives don't seem to match, and you keep wondering how the hell it will all be reconciled. You wonder all the way to the end, and the end is simultaneously inevitable and a heart-wrenching surprise. It was awesome.

The episode was written by the series creators, Michelle and Robert King, and I have to tell you ... I'm tempted to send them an e-mail just to tell them how impressed I was. And I don't impress easily. Especially not by legal dramas, which I mostly find trite and unrealistic.

The bottom line? Start watching The Good Wife. There are some persistent long-term story arcs, but they're secondary to the show's main plots and you should be able to pick them up within a few episodes. There's no doubt the show will be back for a second season, and you definitely want to be primed and ready when it comes. Netflix, anyone?

P.S. -

Erica Durance, I love you.

How "The Daily Show" Keeps Me Sane

I'm not sure when news in America became entertainment, but I think we should figure out the exact date, memorialize it, and have a national day of mourning. I know I usually bemoan the short-attention-span of American television viewers and I condescend about our apparent lack of interest in anything meaningful or challenging, but when it comes to 24-hour news cycles I support the mass exodus of bored viewers. I don't like the confusing mix of "news" and "opinion" stories on CNN, MSNBC, and FOXNEWS. I don't like the flash-in-the-pan battle over demagoguery between MSNBC on the left and FOXNEWS on the right. And foremost, I don't like the bits and pieces of news events that we are bottle-fed in an attempt to accommodate our inability to pay attention. That's why I get my real news from the BBC on XM Satellite Radio.

For my regular dose of American wit, however, I look to The Daily Show. Jon Stewart is one of those rare individuals who has found his perfect niche in entertainment. He was clearly born to host The Daily Show. Don't be confused! The Daily Show is not a news-entertainment program (see how I weaseled out of hypocrisy there?). Jon Stewart doesn't report on the news. Instead, he finds inconsistencies and obfuscations in news and culture and points them out to the rest of us who don't have a production staff to spot them all. And he does it with style. I realize that I am slightly biased here, since Stewart and I share the same sense of humor and sarcasm, but his long-running show gives me hope that I'm not alone here.

Although I don't always agree with his take on events, Jon Stewart is obviously reasoned and reasonable. I respect that reasonableness much more than I do ideological agreement. And above-all, the guy is a master of skewering the 24-hour news network talking heads (whom I generally have no respect for). If you haven't already seen it, you need to immediately watch The Daily Show's Glenn Beck parody from March 18. It was unadulterated genius (see it here). Another recent gimmick that has had me rolling is the use of a Muppet stand-in for Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele. Seriously - this stuff is funny. And I'm a conservative!! Well ... Libertarian, at least. Lest I go too far into pinko-commie land, however, I'll point out another example of the equal-opportunity shaming from The Daily Show. He absolutely loves making fun of the MSNBC show Morning Joe. Occasionally, Stewart will throw in a few clips of that clownish news program with no commentary necessary, just for a laugh.

As the news networks struggle to maintain ratings, mixing partisan commentators and conspiracy nuts with legitimate news bits, The Daily Show is helping me keep a loose hold on reality by giving me 30 minutes of sanity every day (4 days a week, anyway). If you are one of those viewers who is shocked and appalled by the lowbrow news we get on CNN, MSNBC, and FOXNEWS - start watching The Daily Show. You will feel better immediately.


P.S. -

Erica Durance, I love you.

Why I Wish ABC was AMC, and Other Snaps to Basic Cable

Did you know you can get HD programming over your $20 antenna? It's true. Your local networks broadcast all of their network programming over the air in HD (if it is available in HD, that is). Therefore, you don't really need Time Warner, or Comcast, or any of the other evil monopolistic cable providers (technically the monopoly part is not true, but it gives an alarmist ring to the sentence, don't you think?). Also, the HD you get over your antenna is often better than what you get over cable or satellite, depending on your antenna. That means that you could be getting all of your favorite network shows, in HD, for a one-time $20 fee instead of the $65/month you're paying for cable. If the only shows you watch are on ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, CW, and PBS - ditch the cable. You don't need it. Suck it, Time Warner!!

For my own sake, I have the most basic cable available: no HD, no DVR (I have my own Tivo), no premium channels, and no on-demand programming. Instead, I use the antenna to get HD programming. I figure it saves me about $600/year. For those of you who know me personally, you'll probably realize this has more to do with my propensity for waging useless, one-man crusades against companies that have terrible customer service than it does with the $600. Regardless ...

As usual, there are many wrinkles in my strategy. And the biggest wrinkle is that I've been steadily moving away from network programming in favor of the new crop of dramas on basic cable channels. AMC, for instance, has two fantastic programs that are must-watch: Mad Men and Breaking Bad. I'll reserve full-length reviews of these shows for later posts. Suffice to say for now that if you haven't been watching them, you need to start. Once again, here's my plug for Netflix ... go get a Netflix membership, and add the first two seasons of Breaking Bad and the first 3 seasons of Mad Men. You won't regret it.

FX also has some amazing shows. Nip Tuck is probably one of the best-produced avant-garde dramas of the last decade, and it was extremely popular for a basic cable program. It ran for 7 seasons before ending how all good programs should end: it ran its course. Other shows like Rescue Me, which I loved but had to give up due to limited TV time (hey, even I occasionally get outside), The Shield, which I have not watched but plan to, and some short-lived programs like Dirt and The Riches. Courtney Cox did her best work on Dirt, and I was sorry to see it canceled.

Even USA has gotten into the mix with some pretty entertaining shows like Burn Notice and Saving Grace. Now if I could just convince them to stop running WWE and Law & Order reruns, who knows how far they could go! And I would be dishonest if I didn't point out the shows I watch on SyFy as well (I'm thick-skinned, but all this criticism of my love for genre shows is making me twitchy), like Stargate: Universe and Eureka. If you are not into genre programming, you might actually enjoy Eureka. It's more of a comedrama than a genre program. SyFy has also scored big with its X-Files-like show, Warehouse 13. The show pulled in more viewers consistently than any other SyFy series during it's first mini-season. And after a long break it is scheduled to return soon, likely to good numbers.

You see the dilemma ... I love all of this basic cable programming, but I can't get it in HD (ok ... won't get it in HD) because I loathe Time Warner and all it stands for!! Whew! Deep breath. Time Warner may be evil, but they're not stupid. They know I'll eventually crack (because I know they plot ways to convert me, specifically ... ahem) and get digital cable, supplant my beloved Tivo and get the rented DVR (almost as bad as the old rented telephones that AT&T used to force on the public), and finally pay big bucks for HD basic cable. Bastards.

So why have basic cable networks like USA and AMC been so successful with their dramas? Well, you know I have a theory! As always, however, my theories are based on reasonable suppositions from the available facts. First, the shows produced on basic cable are much, much less expensive than network programming. A show like Breaking Bad, for instance, costs about 1/3 the total of a show like Lost. Most of this difference comes from the lower price that cable networks are willing to pay for an episode of shows like Breaking Bad after they have been made by the producer (in this case, Sony). That makes sense, considering basic cable has much lower viewership. The only reason AMC can pay for these episodes at all is because they don't rely strictly on an advertiser model (like ABC). Cable networks also receive subscription revenue from cable and satellite subscribers.

Second, the producers who develop shows for cable networks do a damned good job of working on the cheap. They shop for locations that have good tax breaks (unlike the big 3, which primarily use Hollywood locations), they hire high-quality unknowns for their actors at a discount, and avoid many of the union problems that Hollywood-produced television encounters.

Also, cable networks don't worry about syndication. Traditionally, a network program has to reach a magic number of episodes before it can be sold into syndication, usually about 4-5 seasons. Cable networks, however, don't use that antiquated model. They sell their shows directly to international and alternate providers episode-by-episode, generating immediate revenue, even for shows with struggling ratings. You would think the big 3 would have figured this out, but alas ... not so much.

Finally, and most importantly, the cable networks are willing to take much bigger risks with their programming. Edgy, sometimes even offensive programming comes out of this strategy, but the result is often much more entertaining television. The big 3 (and Fox) started to stick to a tried-and-true methodology that never changes. Most of the network series have episodes that are not really different from other episodes, or other shows for that matter, in the suspect belief that if America watches "XYZ", we should keep producing identical versions of "XYZ". Thus, network television is slowly dying. ABC has made some half-assed efforts to break new ground with their shows, but what they are really doing is just putting a new spin on successful past concepts like V and Flash Forward. That may stop the bleeding, but the beast is still dying from the wound, folks.

The numbers bear this out. Basic cable programming has steadily been gaining viewers for their late-night dramas, while network programming continues to lose viewers (some more rapidly than others, right NBC? Yeah, Leno was an awesome idea).

The decline of network programming can't last forever, though. I still believe some smart new managers at one of the networks will figure this out (probably someone young and vigorous who watches a lot of TV? Hint?), and start investing heavily in pay-per-view streaming content that is broadcast primarily in that format. The on-air broadcast should just be an afterthought at that point. Why wouldn't you take advantage of a worldwide audience, willing to pay directly for well-produced, edgy programming? It makes sense to me.

So to answer your question ... yes ... I actually do talk about shows that people watch. Sucko.

P.S. -

Erica Durance, I love you.

Why I Think These Shows Should Still Be on the Air, or: Why "Gilmore Girls" is the Reason I'm Not Married

One of my dear readers requested that I make a customized list of programming, sort of a TV Guide for the Loaded Diaper, representative of 1 week of programming. While I am trying to stay away from making lists, I don't think I have the luxury of alienating 1 of the 10 people reading this thing, so here's my compromise. These are the top 5 shows from the past few years that should not have been canceled, and why.

1. Firefly. A lot of Joss Whedon's stuff has a juvenile flavor to it. I don't say that in a denigrating way, but Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel were designed to appeal to young audiences with archetypal heroes. Firefly, on the other hand, had more depth. It was a genre show about the crew of a smuggling vessel, trying to make it in a post-civil-war star system under tyrannical rule. The core of the program was about the captain (played by Nathan Fillion of Castle) and his constant struggle to stay true to his moral ideals, and the mysterious passenger River (played by developing talent Summer Glau) - a genetically modified but atavistic super girl. Fox canceled the show after only 9 episodes based on struggling ratings. The truth is that Fox killed the show in what seems like an almost premeditated manner. First, they aired the 9 episodes out of order. And since Firefly, like most genre shows, depended heavily on long-term story arcs, the viewers were rightly confused from the very beginning. Second, Fox kept moving the show around to different time slots - and they only aired 9 episodes!! It doesn't take a genius to figure out that if you keep hiding a show during its first few episodes, no one is going to watch it. This is TV, not an Easter egg hunt. Regardless, it was a great show, and had enough support for Joss Whedon to make a full-length feature (the passable Serenity) to wrap up the story arc. Fox, just because you lead the market in the 18-49 audience, doesn't mean you can piss us off like this continuously ... we're watching you (hmm ... that may be a bad metaphor).

2. Terminator: the Sarah Connor Chronicles. While we're on Fox and its treatment of genre programming, let's talk about TSCC. This show lasted for 3 mini-seasons (or 1 mini-season and 1 full season, depending on how you look at it), with a total of 31 episodes. It started out great - with a present-day re-tool of the Terminator mythos - using a teenage John Connor and Summer Glau (see? once you're in one genre show, you can't escape!) as a nubile young, female Terminator. The story arc was interesting, the actors were doing a great job, and the writing even started to get much better during the second season. The ratings, however, got crushed towards the end of season 2 (or beginning of mini-season 3). Not surprising, considering Fox's retarded treatment of this show, Firefly style. Not only did they change the air time to the infamous genre-show graveyard of Friday night, before the ailing Dollhouse, Fox also worked with Warner Bros. (the producers of the show) to trim the show's budget in an attempt to make it more profitable. Here's the problem: the show was a sci-fi visual spectacle. When you cut the budget in half, and you can no longer show the robots in a robot show, people tend to lose interest. Duh.

3. Deadwood. I won't even go into how great this show was. If I were making another list of my top 5 favorite shows of all time, this show would probably be in the top 3. If you have never watched it, go out and purchase the DVDs today. You will not be sorry. Ian McShane, Timothy Olyphant, Robin Weigert, and Powers Boothe in some of the most powerful roles you will likely ever see on TV. Like most cable shows, HBO aired this as 3 mini-seasons, with an ongoing story arc continuing through each season about the future of a frontier mining settlement in the 1870s. The show just kept getting better each season, and the cliffhanger at the end of season 3 led us all to believe there would be a season 4. Unfortunately, HBO and the show's creator David Milch could not agree on "terms" for a 4th season and the show was canceled. I'm sure this was about money, but frankly I place most of the blame on David Milch (who is brilliant, by the way). In my opinion, he was restless and wanted to invest time in his other projects including the cable series John From Cincinnati about a not-so-human surfer. Remember that one? Yeah, me neither. It was short-lived. Thanks, David!

4. Gilmore Girls. Okay, first of all - shut up. Just because I'm man enough to admit I loved this show, doesn't mean I'm above slapping somebody who taunts me about it. This show about a single mom and her bookworm daughter was intelligent, snarky, and rife with pop culture references that would make any americanophile swoon. Not to mention the optimistic portrayal of small-town America in a time where most small towns are portrayed as little more than redneck breeding grounds or places where pageant moms rule. And as long as we're being honest, Lauren Graham was really the reason I watched this show. Her creation of the quintessential modern woman - independent, complex, funny, neurotic, romantic - set the bar a little high for real-life single women. "Are you telling me there are single women out there who can run a business and quote lines from Pipi Longstocking? Sign me up!" The show was canceled (predictably) one season after its creator Amy Sherman Palladino left because of, I presume, creative and financial concerns. Still, we got 6 great seasons and 1 meh season out of it. I needed one more, though.

5. Farscape. You knew it was coming. And if you didn't know it was coming, you have never listened to me rant about how the greatest genre show of all time was stepped on, abused, spit on, and spit out by the SyFy network in favor of factory-line monster-movie crap like Chupacabra: Dark Seas and Mega Piranha. Do I really even need to talk about Farscape here? Shouldn't it be enough to point out what SyFy does invest it's money in? Oh, Fine ... Farscape was an Australian-made, Lost in Space type show that followed the crew of a living spaceship full of interstellar convicts, including a lost human astronaut. It was funny, quirky, action-packed, and there were muppets! Hello? Muppets? You should take remedial TV classes if you don't understand how awesome Muppets are. The show lasted 4 seasons and was canceled despite being critically-acclaimed and having decent ratings for a SyFy show. I think the producers of the show probably got a little big for their britches and started investing too much money in flashy space sequences and corny opening effects. The show was becoming too expensive for a SyFy series, but that could have been worked out. It was actually better in its initial seasons when it cost much less.

You should start seeing a pattern here ... genre shows have a tough row to hoe. They're expensive, they have long-term story arcs that take time to get rolling, and conversely they have a hard time picking up new viewers precisely because of the long-term story arcs. Viewers are less likely to start watching a show in the second season when the main plotlines are in mid-stream. Networks like Fox and SyFy could make it easier on us, however, if they had a long-term view of shows; genre shows are much more likely to build franchise assets (think Star Trek or Stargate) that will spawn merchandising, spinoffs, and features. Also, genre shows need coddling. They need powerhouse lead-ins with their time slots (hey Fox! try scheduling a genre show after American Idol and see how long it takes to gather an audience, whydontcha!) and they need big up-front investments in sets, effects, and writing. Unfortunately, today's networks run on a short-term business model and rely on independent production companies (who usually own the distribution rights of the show) to create the programming. In other words, while I think we might get some cool 2-season genre shows every once in a while, don't expect many powerhouse genre properties to emerge any time soon.

P.S. -

Erica Durance, I love you.

How I Justify Watching "The Biggest Loser"

Actually, I'm not sure I can. If my ten years as a lawyer have taught me anything, however, they have taught me how to equivocate, so I'll give it my best shot.

Generally speaking, I don't like reality TV. I find shows like The Apprentice, Sober House, and The Real World to be contrived, exploitative, and boring. I also find it disheartening that the most popular shows on television are designed to appeal to our basest nature. Reality TV is not uplifting; it doesn't challenge us or encourage us to know and accomplish more. Instead, when we watch Reality TV we delight in the misery and awful behavior of our fellows. Using SAT words often riles me up, so forgive my alarmist conclusion here: Reality TV is a few short steps away from truly hating ourselves and our neighbors. In a time of social disconnection, is that what we want?

Now I'll start the hypocrisy (I do that a lot). Some programming that might technically be classified as Reality TV still finds its way into my Tivo. Most notably, The Biggest Loser. My lame justification for this inconsistency is that The Biggest Loser, and several other programs like it, are not strictly Reality TV. I think it is more accurate to call this show, Dancing With the Stars, The Amazing Race, and of course the progenitor American Idol, a "Reality Game Show". These shows, at their core, are contests. Each week the participants go through challenges, get scored, and try to defeat the other participants (contestants) to try and win an ultimate prize. Clearly, these shows are less Real World and more The Price is Right.

That's my lawyer's argument. I'm still troubled, though, because these Reality Game Shows (I really, really hope that ends up in the popular lexicon) carry the "contest" portion of the show on the backs of the contestants' personal lives and the accompanying baggage that should probably remain private. Thus, while I enjoy watching the contestants on The Biggest Loser put up big numbers on the scale each week and watching their miraculous transformations (can you believe how great Sam looks after just a few months?!), I find myself even more entertained by the strife and personal drama that is a much bigger part of the show. The Biggest Loser is the only Reality Game Show that I watch, and considering the conundrum I've laid out here - I think it will be my last.

I am hopeful, however, that we may be winnowing the true Reality TV programs out of our culture at long last. Bit by bit, I believe programming will become less about the personal tragedies of real people and more about creative, complex story-telling. Maybe Reality Game Shows are the first step in this dilution of Reality TV. Please?

P.S. -

Erica Durance, I love you.

How the XBox Will Change the Way You Watch TV, + "Modern Family"

I don't watch sitcoms. At least not regularly, and certainly not when they are aired on network television or from my Tivo list, since I don't record them. Therefore, this post is for all of you (the three of you) who have asked me to say something about several Sitcoms, most notably The Office, 30 Rock, and Modern Family.

First, The Office: I can't watch this show ... in any format. I have a real problem with second-hand embarrassment that prevents me from watching people, even fictional characters, from shredding their dignity in deliberately awkward situations. In The Office, that's the whole point. Though I love Steve Carrell and his movies (yes, I have to hide my eyes frequently), I can't squeak through an entire episode of The Office because it makes me want to stab myself in the eyes with a fork. There you go - The Office ... covered.

30 Rock: I really do like this show. It is campy (which I find is an exception to my aversion to awkwardness), cute, and unapologetically intelligent. If I ever meet Liz Lemon in real life (bizarre secret single behaviors and all), I see an instant marriage proposal unfolding. I did not (and do not), however, watch this show in broadcast. I stream the episodes from my XBox through Netflix. The episodes are one season behind - think of it like DVD release time - but I am able to watch many episodes at a time, which overcomes one of my great dislikes of sitcoms in general: they are only 22 minutes long! How can you engross yourself in the characters in only 22 minutes every few weeks? You sitcom afficionadoes out there might be able to manage it, but I have a plodding, over-considerate brain that takes more time to process a story. So, while I love 30 Rock, I won't be discussing last night's episodes at the water cooler (do they still have water coolers in offices these days?).

Modern Family: If I know you and respect your opinion, you have invariably told me to watch this show. I haven't, of course, because I don't watch sitcoms over broadcast. If Modern Family makes it to the streaming content library over Netflix, I promise I will watch it and render my opinions. Realize, of course, that means I will be a season behind. Patience is a virtue!

A word on the XBox: The streaming content from Netflix that I mention above can be had through your Tivo, over the web on your computer (or on web-enabled TVs), or from your XBox or PS3. I have tried streaming the content online, and while it seems to work fine - I don't prefer to sit in front of my 21" computer screen when I have a giant (let's not start a TV/penis competition here, by the way) 49" Samsung LCD begging to help heat my living room. I've also tried streaming Netflix to my HD Tivo, and that was an abject failure. The picture was certainly not HD (when it should have been), and the Tivo couldn't keep up with buffering the content. It was constantly stopping and starting. And before you criticise, yes my internet provider and wireless network are perfectly capable of streaming the HD content with plenty of speed to spare. I have therefore found the XBox to be the best mode of streaming content. For you PS3'ers out there, I'm sure it works just as well.

How will this change how you watch TV? Well, the streaming content library continues to grow (it's difficult to get an accurate count of titles, since some are available for a limited time, and more titles are added continuously; the count is certainly over 20,000 however), and the options for watching that content on your TV are expanding like a Biggest Loser contestant the year after the show. While the new fad is stand-alone stream-to-tv devices like the Roku or LinkTheater, multi-tasking devices are my bet for the future of TV. After all, who would invest in a Roku when they can get an XBox and play Halo after watching an episode of Lost?

I also think Microsoft is headed down the right hardware path here. Sony has invested beaucoups bucks in BluRay technology - winning a format war with Toshiba, the pioneer of HD DVDs - betting that BluRay discs will be the format of choice for HD content. I beg to differ. Um, hello? BluRay is wicked expensive and has a major weakness ... it requires a disc. Doesn't anyone remember what happened to VHS? And cassettes? And 8-tracks? Microsoft is betting that when presented with the option to free ourselves from the physical remnant of content-delivery, we'll choose the streaming content every time. If the quality starts to rival BluRay, which it will soon, Sony is going to be sucking hind [edited for propriety] in this battle because they will be left holding the BluRay bag, while their streaming content is still the neglected step-child of the PS3.

A sidenote to networks here: the clamor from viewers to start throwing their favorite shows into the streaming library sooner than the DVD release is going to finally drag you into the 21st century, forcing you to find new ways to produce television entertainment. It won't be long before we will be watching all of our TV over a streaming device like the XBox.

Conclusion: if you like to buy stocks, Microsoft and Netflix will be good long-term investments. And yes ... I will eventually watch Modern Family

P.S. -

Erica Durance, I love you.

Why "V" Will Make It ... Probably

ABC's reincarnation of V returns tonight from a long (looooooong) season break. I can't even label it a "mid-season break" because they stopped airing episodes after only 4. That's not a mid-anything. While I'm not a huge fan of season breaks in general (I think they're a useless holdover from the old school 22-episode season production schedule, when networks still re-aired the season in its entirety during summer reruns), I hate hate hate the long gaps in some recently produced dramas. ABC seems especially prone to this gaffe. And don't be fooled into thinking it's a deliberately planned stunt. I highly doubt it. My guess is that the network execs try to capitalize on peak TV-times by airing whatever is in the can before new episodes have even been written. Of course, the Network risks losing most of its audience when the new episodes start airing because the momentum is lost. That, and everyone has forgotten what happened in the first episodes - especially risky with genre shows like V that rely on a long-term story arc.

Though we will find out tomorrow whether V manages to hold on to its audience, I predict it will do well, possibly even picking up viewers. Here's what V has going for it:

1. The summary episode. ABC learned from Lost that a good summary episode aired the week before a long hiatus ends can help a show recover some of the disillusioned viewers that forgot the details over the break. Some smart producer reached into the 80's TV vault and dusted off an old trick - the montage episode - and put it to good use. The old montage episodes (remember those? Little House on the Prairie, Buck Rogers, and The Waltons did some great ones) were basically a device used by producers to fill out a 22-episode season with a little filler to save dough. Need a cheap episode? No problem! Cut together some scenes from previous episodes with a few wide shots of the actors reminiscing about old times. Bingo! Episode 12 for a song! Now ABC is using the montage episode to catch us all up, and bag the Tuesday night viewers for one more night ... gratis! Hire a narrator and a drunk editor and you too can capture a 5 share!

2. Legions of 30-something geeks who loved the original series (try watching it now on SyFy reruns, by the way .... blech!) and will basically watch a remake of anything that reminds us of a time when we still had hope of meeting girls.

3. Passable writing. I'm not saying the first 4 episodes made me want to run out and buy the novelization, but it wasn't bad. Considering they crammed the setup to at least 5 different plot lines into those 4 episodes, and adequately introduced all of the main characters without making me reach for the remote, I'm willing to give the story so far a solid B. Not bad for the first few episodes of a genre show. Room to grow, for sure, but it's not a train wreck from the start like some other genre shows I could mention but won't (for instance, I could mention Star Trek: Enterprise, but I won't).

4. Morena Baccarin. I still haven't figured out why some actors who star in one genre show end up starring almost exclusively in other genre shows. It seems like every actor that had a passing connection to the updated Battlestar Galactica (hereinafter referred to as BSG) is showing up in every other genre show that currently exists. Morena Baccarin is no stranger to that trend. She was the smoking-hot "companion" on Joss Whedon's short-lived (tragic! betrayal!) Firefly, and we didn't see much of her until her reappearance on V as the cunning, evil leader Anna. Whatever you prefer, scrappy smart "companion" or nefarious lizard alien - Morena Baccarin is laying the smack down on that role so far.

5. A seemingly endless supply of beautiful people. I think Scott Wolf's character said it best in the first episode: "Are there any ugly visitors?" Clearly, Scott, the answer is no. In fact, even the humans in this show are excessively easy on the eyes. For all of you Haute Cinema gasbags out there, don't whine about how TV stars don't reflect the real world. Duh. That's why we watch TV instead of staring out the window. Pretty people!

6. Aliens. Hopefully someone is finally figuring out that aliens make good TV. You can have an average script, but if it has aliens in it I will watch it. No aliens? Yeah, I have DVDs if I get bored; I don't really need to suffer through another episode of 24. Now ... if 24 had aliens? The show might not have been canceled. That's all I'm saying.

All in all, I'm optimistic about V. It has promise, and as long as ABC manages to keep their grubby paws off the writers, the show will likely heat up for the rest of its first-season run. It certainly has long-term potential. I mean, the original had a major conspiracy followed by metaphysical alien reproduction, followed by Red Dawn inspired occupation and resistance. Who can't squeeze 5 seasons out of THAT?!

ABC - I'm invested. Don't let me down.

P.S. -

Erica Durance, I love you.

Why I Should Be a Network Executive

Because I can see the future!! Fox announced today that 24 will not be coming back for a 9th season. Check here for a taste: https://www.hollywood.com/news/The_Clock_Stops_FOX_Cancels_24/6837012

While I assume this announcement has been in the works for several weeks at least, I don't mind pointing everyone to my post from last week, "How the BBC Got it Right Where 24 Continues to Get it Wrong" http://theloadeddiaper.blogspot.com/2010/03/how-bbc-got-it-right-where-24-continues.html as proof that someone at Fox needs to hire me to run things. At the very least, I can "run" things from the mail room to Rupert Murdoch's office.

P.S. -

Erica Durance, I love you.

How BBC Got it Right Where "24" Continues to Get it Wrong

First off, a confession: I love BBC programming. In particular, I love BBC dramas. I'm not as gaga over their sitcoms as many Americans (apologies to those of you who fawn over the original The Office, Fawlty Towers, and AbFab), but I believe many of their dramas incorporate something that most American network programs intentionally ignore - namely: complexity and subtlety.

As a specific example, I recently watched the 2006 BBC series The State Within. A 7 episode mini, this series examines a potential terrorist plot within the United States, seen from the perspective of the British Ambassador to the US, admirably played by the British actor Jason Isaacs. The show takes place primarily in Washington, D.C. and involves eminent characters like the US Secretary of Defense, the Governor of Florida (briefly), and other Washington insiders. At its heart, this is a show about a conspiracy that, drawing on its obvious 24 inspiration, reaches the highest echelons of government.

Unlike 24, however, The State Within relies not on action and suspense, it instead uses a well-crafted story and a coherent sense of character motivation to draw in the viewer. Of course it has a few great explosions, including an airplane crashing on the I-95 in the first episode, a few gunfights, and even the shocking and bloody execution of a prostitute. All good conspiracy stories should, after all, incorporate the use or threat of violence. Yet The State Within uses these devices judiciously and as a furtherance of the plot. It's also possible that the BBC just doesn't have the funds to stage dozens of military-style scraps in one program, but if that's the case I think the shoestring budgets are helping, not hindering the BBC.

24 seems to have stopped caring about details like story, character motivation, and frankly the eventual fatigue an audience experiences after watching the 97th torture scene, the 48th car chase, or the utterly predictable 123rd cliffhanger where Jack Bauer is on the verge of death. I watched 24 through the end of the 7th season, but I realized towards the end that I was watching it only because I felt invested, not because I was enjoying it anymore. Episodes were piling up in my Tivo unwatched, and it took me months to get through them all - forcing myself to dedicate an hour here and there to wade through the backlog. I think I watched the finale in September. Honestly, I got bored of the repetitive sequence of episodes: resolution of previous cliffhanger; clue revealed; frantic search; major action sequence; cliffhanger. When character motivation is sprinkled into the show, it often doesn't make sense or is so contrived as to be laughable. Further, when the underlying conspiracy of the current season is developed, the writers seem to be force-feeding it to the audience with no subtlety at all. That's probably why the reins of the conspiracy shift so often in a season of 24. They have to keep the suspense alive somehow, and the story is never complex enough to keep one thread going for long in a season. Thus, you end up with one villain after another, usually creeping your way up the hierarchy of the conspiracy until you reach some bigwig in [insert name of government or corporation here].

This is where the BBC gets it right. The BBC writers seem to understand that audience confusion during a suspenseful story is not a bad thing. Keep the audience guessing, and as long as the story flows well, the payoff is much better. I feel obligated to point out that the BBC is not invincible on this point. If you start watching another of the great BBC suspense dramas, MI-5, stop after the 3rd season (or series as the Brits would say). The 4th season of this great show jumped the 24 shark, sacrificing story for action and pounding music. Don't bother.

For those of you who prefer the intellectual treading of water that is 24, I don't judge. TV is escapism, after all, and if you prefer to check out while you veg out, then 24 serves that purpose well. If you want more crank in your melon like I do, then Netflix The State Within.

PS -

Erica Durance, I love you.