It looks as though Studio 60 is definitely coughing up blood. Whether or not Friday Night Lights is likely to follow seems to depend on what you read.
Now, I'm prepared to be philisophical should S60 in fact be cancelled. As I found myself reminding Buffy the Vampire Slayer fans a few years ago, even the best television show is, in the end, just a television show. Let's not do this like it was a member of the family who died.
(Although frankly, I'll have more right to complain than those whiny brats who said seven years of Buffy and five of Angel wasn't "a fair chance")
However. If Studio 60 goes, and 30 Rock makes it because of its new favored time slot, that's gonna piss me off.
Even if Friday Night Lights, which I like (although it's dimming every week), is saved it might aggravte me. Because it's getting lower ratings than Studio 60, but it might be seen as more "patriotic" being as it's about "how real Americans enjoy themselves" and not them Hollywood liberals.
Yes, that will aggravate me no end.
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
A little something for Halloween...
As you may know, there are a lot of horror movies, and tributes to horror movies, bouncing around the cable networks these days. I wanted to do something similar. But, as you must know if you've been reading this blog more than a week, what I really like to post are videos by '80s/new wave/alternative rock bands.
Songs that some less enlightened souls might find cheesy, but I simply and rightly find cool. So...what to do, what to do?
I know.
Trivia: That song was actually featured in one of the movies "clipped" above. If you notice the scene with the little punk chick doing the robot-popping dance, that's what she was dancing to. Unfortunately (or not...), she gets killed shortly therafter.
Oh, and the song's by Pseudo Echo.
Songs that some less enlightened souls might find cheesy, but I simply and rightly find cool. So...what to do, what to do?
I know.
Trivia: That song was actually featured in one of the movies "clipped" above. If you notice the scene with the little punk chick doing the robot-popping dance, that's what she was dancing to. Unfortunately (or not...), she gets killed shortly therafter.
Oh, and the song's by Pseudo Echo.
Monday, October 30, 2006
It's like a blast of happy up my ass!
(As always, click to enlarge)
Or, if you look over to the right there, you'll see I've added a permanent link to the page for Sinfest, my favorite webcomic. Regular viewing is strongly suggested.
Sunday, October 29, 2006
Random Flickr-Blogging: IMG_0336: Awwwwwwww edition
Yes? What? Can I help you?
Original photo credit.
I can't believe you're wearing the same dress as me, you cow.
Original photo credit.
"My superhearing is picking up a robbery! Somewhere in the sprawling Metropolis, another job for the incredible..."
When dogs have rich fantasy lives.
Original photo credit.
This is insane.
TMZ has put together a photo gallery of those celebs they feel to have the most "ripped" bodies. Men and women alike, for you ladies and any gay men who may be looking in. Among them, Christina Ricci, about whom they say
Um, no. Or at least, I hope it's not the body every woman would kill for. I know it's not the body every man would kill for, because I'm a man, and I wouldn't kill for this body. I might have 10 years ago (give or take), before Ms. Ricci had the "baby fat" beaten off her by a business that thinks Kate Winslet is somehow too heavy.
Christina Ricci has the body every woman would kill for.
Um, no. Or at least, I hope it's not the body every woman would kill for. I know it's not the body every man would kill for, because I'm a man, and I wouldn't kill for this body. I might have 10 years ago (give or take), before Ms. Ricci had the "baby fat" beaten off her by a business that thinks Kate Winslet is somehow too heavy.
There goes the last lingering threat of my ever watching the new Battlestar Galactica
As mentioned in the past, I have yet to get into the new, improved (?) Battlestar Galactica, athough many sources and people I trust are fans. The reason I'm not is partly because every time I've tried an episode, the dialogue seems ennobled by the word "functional." And the whole thing has an air of such self-importance, like: This is serious science fiction.
Ooh!
But more importantly, and really, I can't stress this enough: Those are not Cylons. Cylons have one glowing eye bouncing back and forth on the middle of their forehead like a ping-pong ball. That's right, I'm old school, goddamnit.
But still, as I say, enough people I respect enjoy the show that I was prepared to say that just because I don't, it didn't mean there was anything wrong with it.
That was before I learned that it had been absolutely embraced by righties like Jonah Goldberg and John Podhoretz. A writer for American Prospect, Brad Reed, documents a number of examples of those on the right taking ficticious circumstances as justification for the real moves our government makes.
Everything from Star Wars to Star Trek to The Lord of the Rings is seen as reinforcement that what they think is absolutely correct which seems to me, at best, an interesting interpretation.
Of course, Roddenberry and Tolkien are dead so we can't ask them, but Tolkein is known to have disliked too much interpretation of his work. Roddenberry at least mouthed peace-and-love platitudes. And much as I may criticize most of Lucas' recent work as insults to the intelligence, I think Lucas might have a slightly different point of view of the lessons of Star Wars than
A relatively benign one like Pinochet. I'll just wait here if any of you need to Google that name. Now, back to our story.
Strangely, Reed doesn't mention 24, which of course, is considered by its co-creator to be a rationalization for torture. So Republicans can enjoy it without fear, knowing that what they're getting out of it is exactly what they're intended to get out of it.
Unlike Battlestar Galactica, which they loved...
...until (I am informed) events in the current season stopped looking like George Bush's war as they desperately want it to be, and more like it factually is.
Goldberg is a poster child for the armchair warriors, those who are very gung-ho about coming up with reasons why other people should fight., and as Reed concludes,
Podhoretz, I learned back when he was calling Aaron Sorkin names, is incapable of imagining any piece of drama as without a political agenda. Do the writers of Battlestar Galactica have one? I dunno.
But, I do note with interest that (assuming what's been written here about the series is correct), they seem to be mirroring public opinion about Iraq-the more people think it's a mistake, the more the Cylons take the Americans role in this "allegory."
That's right, they're out on the edge of public opinion, taking their cues from the polls.
They must be Democrats.
Ooh!
But more importantly, and really, I can't stress this enough: Those are not Cylons. Cylons have one glowing eye bouncing back and forth on the middle of their forehead like a ping-pong ball. That's right, I'm old school, goddamnit.
But still, as I say, enough people I respect enjoy the show that I was prepared to say that just because I don't, it didn't mean there was anything wrong with it.
That was before I learned that it had been absolutely embraced by righties like Jonah Goldberg and John Podhoretz. A writer for American Prospect, Brad Reed, documents a number of examples of those on the right taking ficticious circumstances as justification for the real moves our government makes.
Everything from Star Wars to Star Trek to The Lord of the Rings is seen as reinforcement that what they think is absolutely correct which seems to me, at best, an interesting interpretation.
Of course, Roddenberry and Tolkien are dead so we can't ask them, but Tolkein is known to have disliked too much interpretation of his work. Roddenberry at least mouthed peace-and-love platitudes. And much as I may criticize most of Lucas' recent work as insults to the intelligence, I think Lucas might have a slightly different point of view of the lessons of Star Wars than
Jonathan Last, the Weekly Standard editor whose review of Star Wars: Attack of the Clones was a love letter to imperialism. “The deep lesson of Stars Wars is that empire is good,” wrote Last, who justified his Empireophelia by arguing that the old Galactic Republic had become “simply too big to be governable,” and that the galaxy needed an empire to fill the void. Last acknowledged that the Empire was “sometimes brutal” but that acts of planeocide weren’t so bad “when viewed in context.” Last also showered praise upon Emperor Palpatine, whom he dubbed “an esoteric Straussian” and “a dictator ... but a relatively benign one, like Pinochet.”
A relatively benign one like Pinochet. I'll just wait here if any of you need to Google that name. Now, back to our story.
Strangely, Reed doesn't mention 24, which of course, is considered by its co-creator to be a rationalization for torture. So Republicans can enjoy it without fear, knowing that what they're getting out of it is exactly what they're intended to get out of it.
Unlike Battlestar Galactica, which they loved...
National Review’s Jonah Goldberg, who writes regularly about Galactica’s politics on NRO’s group blog, The Corner, also picked up on parallels between the show and the war on terror. Goldberg took particular glee in attacking Galactica’s anti-war movement, which he said consisted of “radical peaceniks” and “peace-terrorists” who “are clearly a collection of whack jobs, fifth columnists and idiots.” Goldberg also praised several characters for trying to rig a presidential election. “I liked that the good guys wanted to steal the election and, it turns out, they were right to want to,” wrote Goldberg.
...until (I am informed) events in the current season stopped looking like George Bush's war as they desperately want it to be, and more like it factually is.
“The whole suicide bombing thing … made comparisons to Iraq incredibly ham-fisted,” wrote a frustrated Goldberg, who had hoped the struggle against the Cylons would look more like Le Resistance than the Iraqi insurgency. “The French resistance vibe … is part of what makes the Iraq comparison so offensive. It’s a one-step remove from comparing the Iraqi insurgency to the (romanticized) French resistance.”
Fellow Corner writer John Podheretz shared Goldberg’s assessment, and chided conservative fans of the show who were still in denial about its sudden leftward drift. “Message to BSG fans on the Right,” wrote Podheretz sternly. “You cannot … come up with some cockamamie explanation whereby it’s not about how we Americans are the Cylons and the humans are the ‘insurgents’ fighting an ‘imperialist’ power.”
Goldberg is a poster child for the armchair warriors, those who are very gung-ho about coming up with reasons why other people should fight., and as Reed concludes,
Of course, it’s easy to talk tough about invading multiple nations if you’re not the one doing any of the work. The thrill the Galacticons get from watching the Iraq war on their TVs is the same thrill the typical Mountain Dew-swilling reject feels watching Battlestar Galactica; it’s only fun for them because they’re not going through it themselves.
Podhoretz, I learned back when he was calling Aaron Sorkin names, is incapable of imagining any piece of drama as without a political agenda. Do the writers of Battlestar Galactica have one? I dunno.
But, I do note with interest that (assuming what's been written here about the series is correct), they seem to be mirroring public opinion about Iraq-the more people think it's a mistake, the more the Cylons take the Americans role in this "allegory."
That's right, they're out on the edge of public opinion, taking their cues from the polls.
They must be Democrats.
Okay, the "Dave Vs. Bill" thing
Bill O'Reilly was on the Letterman show on Friday, and Letterman made it very clear that he thinks O'Reilly is at best disingenuous, at worst dishonest in advocating for the war in Iraq. It was very nearly gripping, compelling television, because people like O'Reilly rarely put themselves in a position where they're actually going to be confronted with dissent. Especially when they're not in the power seat.
And people like Letterman rarely take political positions more advanced than whatever the current caricature of a political figure is in the media. Like, George W. Bush is stupid. Bill Clinton is horny...
The reason it wasn't all that charged is mainly down to the fact that Letterman kept shooting himself in the foot with jokes about how he's just a big dumb guy like O'Reilly, himself. At first it made me wish that he would read a book (or even a blog) before getting into something like this. Because in a weird way, he ended up looking like the worst kind of teenaged political protester, all passion with no information.
But now that I come to think about it, I don't believe Letterman actually is all that uninformed. I remember reading in a profile of him that he habitually listens to the BBC world news service on the radio.
(Of course, that profile was written before Letterman's son was born. It's entirely possible, and understandable if, that changed his radio listening habits).
And I don't believe you get where he has gotten by being a stupid man. So, surely he must have had better ammunition at his disposal than he chose to use, for some reason. I assume it's because his instincts as an intelligent, sensitive man were at war with those as a broadcaster and host.
You see Jon Stewart getting caught between them sometimes too. But he's generally better at making the points he wants to make, and they're usually well-informed points, while remaining a gracious host.
Mark Evanier has some observations about the segment, and a link to a video and fact check of what O'Reilly said, here.
And people like Letterman rarely take political positions more advanced than whatever the current caricature of a political figure is in the media. Like, George W. Bush is stupid. Bill Clinton is horny...
The reason it wasn't all that charged is mainly down to the fact that Letterman kept shooting himself in the foot with jokes about how he's just a big dumb guy like O'Reilly, himself. At first it made me wish that he would read a book (or even a blog) before getting into something like this. Because in a weird way, he ended up looking like the worst kind of teenaged political protester, all passion with no information.
But now that I come to think about it, I don't believe Letterman actually is all that uninformed. I remember reading in a profile of him that he habitually listens to the BBC world news service on the radio.
(Of course, that profile was written before Letterman's son was born. It's entirely possible, and understandable if, that changed his radio listening habits).
And I don't believe you get where he has gotten by being a stupid man. So, surely he must have had better ammunition at his disposal than he chose to use, for some reason. I assume it's because his instincts as an intelligent, sensitive man were at war with those as a broadcaster and host.
You see Jon Stewart getting caught between them sometimes too. But he's generally better at making the points he wants to make, and they're usually well-informed points, while remaining a gracious host.
Mark Evanier has some observations about the segment, and a link to a video and fact check of what O'Reilly said, here.
Saturday, October 28, 2006
It was old when Buffy did it, Bill
TMZ has a short interview with "Scrubs" creator/writer/producer Bill Lawrence. In the interview, he talks about an upcoming "big musical episode" of "Scrubs."
In fact, by the time Buffy got around to doing their good-but-overrated "big musical episode," they were following in the footsteps of everything on TV from "The Drew Carey Show" to "The Simpsons" to "South Park" to even "Xena."
Full disclosure: I hate Bill Lawrence. Why? Because (in no particular order):
He's the succesful creator/writer/producer of multiple television shows.
He's worth about $12 million dollars.
He's married to the most beautiful woman on television (1995-2005), Christa Miller.
He's writing a new "Fletch" movie.
What's not to hate?
It's definitely something people haven't seen on TV unless they, well, I was going to say "on TV ever" but then I'd say unless they watched "Buffy the Vampire Slayer."
In fact, by the time Buffy got around to doing their good-but-overrated "big musical episode," they were following in the footsteps of everything on TV from "The Drew Carey Show" to "The Simpsons" to "South Park" to even "Xena."
Full disclosure: I hate Bill Lawrence. Why? Because (in no particular order):
He's the succesful creator/writer/producer of multiple television shows.
He's worth about $12 million dollars.
He's married to the most beautiful woman on television (1995-2005), Christa Miller.
He's writing a new "Fletch" movie.
What's not to hate?
Friday, October 27, 2006
A lesser man would complain about this score
...but given what the thing is about...
...I take scoring right in the middle of the 80s as satisfyingly apt.
| You Scored 85% Correct |
 You are an 80s expert You never confuse New Order with the Pet Shop Boys You know which classical musician Falco rocked When it comes to 80s music, you Just Can't Get Enough! |
...I take scoring right in the middle of the 80s as satisfyingly apt.
This is preposterous
There's a new theatrical documentary coming out about the Dixie Chicks. Specifically about the vicious attacks that were made on them:
...and how they responded, after Natalie criticized our right-wing Commander In Chief.
As you can imagine if you know how I feel about the Chicks (they're damn-near perfect, and long may they wave), I'm rather looking forward to this. And it has a great title-Shut Up And Sing.
But it seems I'm going to have to keep my eyes peeled for its release, since the networks are refusing to accept to accept ads for it.
From Unclaimed Territory:
...which is preposterous. NBC doesn't want to disparage the President? I'll remember that tonight when I'm watching The Tonight Show or Conan O'Brien. Where, call it a hunch, I predict there will be at least one joke built on the notion that Mr. Bush is, in fact, kind of stupid.
It's preposterous, but it's important because, as Glenn writes, it fits into
Remember when the networks-even the nominally gay & lesbian LOGO-wouldn't run an ad by the UCC promoting their message of acceptance? Remember when CBS censored-and I do not use the word lightly-the Reagans miniseries?
Same thing. Glenn continues:
...and how they responded, after Natalie criticized our right-wing Commander In Chief.As you can imagine if you know how I feel about the Chicks (they're damn-near perfect, and long may they wave), I'm rather looking forward to this. And it has a great title-Shut Up And Sing.
But it seems I'm going to have to keep my eyes peeled for its release, since the networks are refusing to accept to accept ads for it.
From Unclaimed Territory:
According to Matt Drudge (a phrase that does not roll out of one's mouth easily), both NBC and the CW Television Network (the joint venture of CBS and Warner Brothers that combines the WB and UPN Networks) are refusing to air ads promoting Shut Up & Sing on the ground that the ads are "disparaging" to our President
...which is preposterous. NBC doesn't want to disparage the President? I'll remember that tonight when I'm watching The Tonight Show or Conan O'Brien. Where, call it a hunch, I predict there will be at least one joke built on the notion that Mr. Bush is, in fact, kind of stupid.
It's preposterous, but it's important because, as Glenn writes, it fits into
a very disturbing trend whereby television networks are refusing to broadcast political advocacy material that will offend the Republican power structure in Washington.
Remember when the networks-even the nominally gay & lesbian LOGO-wouldn't run an ad by the UCC promoting their message of acceptance? Remember when CBS censored-and I do not use the word lightly-the Reagans miniseries?
Same thing. Glenn continues:
The very idea that it is in the "public interest" to prohibit ads that criticize the Leader is ludicrous on its face. The President is constantly given free airtime to argue his views and propagandize on virtually every issue, and the networks endlessly offer forums for his followers and surrogates to defend him. And the networks' argument is particularly absurd now, given that networks are awash with cash from offensive, obnoxious, and repugnant political ads of every kind.
Thursday, October 26, 2006
Maybe it helps that I'm not watching Lost
In which Ben tries again to figure out why The Nine is sinking while Another Fucking CSI and Dancing With The flippin Stars are leading their timeslots.
For what it's worth, and for howeversolong as it lasts, here are a couple of clips from The Nine that I found on YouTube. Maybe they'll give you an idea of why I think a truly great show is slipping through our fingers.
The first is an extended (over six minutes) sequence from the pilot episode, showing the important scenes just before and just after the hostage crisis at the bank.
Second is a much shorter-less than two minues-scene from last week's episode in which Lizzie tells Jeremy something. The pair, played by Jessica Collins and Scott Wolf respectively, were boyfriend and girlfriend...before they went into the bank. But "a moment," which has not yet been fully made clear, seems to have changed that.
This is the scene that had me specifically praising Wolf's work last week, watch his eyes even before she tells him what she tells him. And notice Collins, who is lovely too in the scene (and hard to keep your eyes off of).
In a recent intervew, Wolf answered the question,
Berman suggests something similar. And maybe they're both right. I have an advantage in that I'm one of the few (apparently) who was never hooked on Lost. So when I come to turn on The Nine, I'm ready for my intense hour of television and I can give it all my attention for that hour.
Who knows how I'd feel if it were after, say, 24-which would really be weird since Kim Raver is on both shows, but I think you know what I mean. I'd like to think the buzz the show has generated would get ABC thinking new timeslot instead of cancellation, but who the hell knows.
I'd also like to think posts like this contribute at least a little bit to the buzz. The good news is, Scott, the audience that's there thinks the story you're telling is great, but...
For what it's worth, and for howeversolong as it lasts, here are a couple of clips from The Nine that I found on YouTube. Maybe they'll give you an idea of why I think a truly great show is slipping through our fingers.
The first is an extended (over six minutes) sequence from the pilot episode, showing the important scenes just before and just after the hostage crisis at the bank.
Second is a much shorter-less than two minues-scene from last week's episode in which Lizzie tells Jeremy something. The pair, played by Jessica Collins and Scott Wolf respectively, were boyfriend and girlfriend...before they went into the bank. But "a moment," which has not yet been fully made clear, seems to have changed that.
This is the scene that had me specifically praising Wolf's work last week, watch his eyes even before she tells him what she tells him. And notice Collins, who is lovely too in the scene (and hard to keep your eyes off of).
In a recent intervew, Wolf answered the question,
UGO: Do you think that following a show like Lost puts a lot of pressure on you guys?
SCOTT: I think it's sort of a mixed bag. Obviously, to have a lead in that's a really powerful show like Lost is a great thing and we were thrilled to be put there. I guess in the end, though, it really comes down to what the audience thinks. I think that both shows have an intensity about them that makes it a lot for people to have a two hour block of that level of intensity, but I'm hoping in the long run our show really speaks for itself and the audience continues to respond well to the story we're telling.
Berman suggests something similar. And maybe they're both right. I have an advantage in that I'm one of the few (apparently) who was never hooked on Lost. So when I come to turn on The Nine, I'm ready for my intense hour of television and I can give it all my attention for that hour.
Who knows how I'd feel if it were after, say, 24-which would really be weird since Kim Raver is on both shows, but I think you know what I mean. I'd like to think the buzz the show has generated would get ABC thinking new timeslot instead of cancellation, but who the hell knows.
I'd also like to think posts like this contribute at least a little bit to the buzz. The good news is, Scott, the audience that's there thinks the story you're telling is great, but...
Wednesday, October 25, 2006
More bad and good news from the world of TV
NBC is about to move 30 Rock to Thursdays at 9:30. I guess somebody at NBC likes it. There are two ways you get a spot on NBC Thursdays. One is, you earn it, as Scrubs, My Name Is Earl, and The Office have.
I don't actually watch any of those series regularly (though I look in on Scrubs from time to time), but it can fairly be said they've proven themselves shows people want to watch. 30 Rock, on the other hand, started with almost nobody watching and had less than that the second week.
Which brings me to the second way you get a show on Thursday nights at NBC: Somebody up there likes you, wants to appease your producer, or both. See Good Morning Miami, produced by Mutchnik & Kohan, the team who sold their soul to the devil for Will & Grace and haven't done anything funny since.
See also Veronica's Closet, produced by the team that brought you Friends. See also Joey.
This is the sort of scheduling-by-favoritism that once led NewsRadio creator Paul Simms, god bless him, to refer to NBC's Thursday-night lineup-in print, for attribution-as "A big double-decker shit sandwich."
In ratings news, according to the usually-trustworthy Marc Berman, things still look dim for Friday Night Lights and I have to say I'm minding less with each passing week. There is much that is still remarkable about the series, especially the performances and direction. And as I've said, any show that can make me care about a high school football team has to be doing something right.
But of my three favorites of "the freshman class"-The Nine, Studio 60, and Friday Night Lights-this is the one I could most stand to lose. If it doesn't make it, I'll feel like it's "just one of those things." Everyone involved will walk away with some good footage for their reel, if nothing else.
If the first two don't make it, I feel like it'll say something about how, in fact, there isn't a place for smart shows on network television these days. Which would be a real shame, especially since a big part of the soul of Studio 60 is about arguing just that point-that there is such a place. I'd really hate for that to be proved wrong.
Especially if 30 Rock succeeds not because anyone actually wants to watch it but because it has friends in the right places. (Lorne Michaels, a man whose name carries much weight in the halls of NBC, is the executive producer of 30 Rock.)
The good news is, also according to Marc Berman,
Quality-wise, IMO, the show's still wavering badly, but it's still good enough for me to root for a full season renwewal. I'd love to see what the writers could do with safe ground under their feet, and not feel that they were casting about wildly for viewers.
Then again, if the first season could survive a guest shot by Paris Hilton and go on to be as good as it was, nothing's impossible.
One final note: The Nine is on tonight at 10 on ABC, y'all, right after Lost. Join me, won't you?
I don't actually watch any of those series regularly (though I look in on Scrubs from time to time), but it can fairly be said they've proven themselves shows people want to watch. 30 Rock, on the other hand, started with almost nobody watching and had less than that the second week.
Which brings me to the second way you get a show on Thursday nights at NBC: Somebody up there likes you, wants to appease your producer, or both. See Good Morning Miami, produced by Mutchnik & Kohan, the team who sold their soul to the devil for Will & Grace and haven't done anything funny since.
See also Veronica's Closet, produced by the team that brought you Friends. See also Joey.
This is the sort of scheduling-by-favoritism that once led NewsRadio creator Paul Simms, god bless him, to refer to NBC's Thursday-night lineup-in print, for attribution-as "A big double-decker shit sandwich."
In ratings news, according to the usually-trustworthy Marc Berman, things still look dim for Friday Night Lights and I have to say I'm minding less with each passing week. There is much that is still remarkable about the series, especially the performances and direction. And as I've said, any show that can make me care about a high school football team has to be doing something right.
But of my three favorites of "the freshman class"-The Nine, Studio 60, and Friday Night Lights-this is the one I could most stand to lose. If it doesn't make it, I'll feel like it's "just one of those things." Everyone involved will walk away with some good footage for their reel, if nothing else.
If the first two don't make it, I feel like it'll say something about how, in fact, there isn't a place for smart shows on network television these days. Which would be a real shame, especially since a big part of the soul of Studio 60 is about arguing just that point-that there is such a place. I'd really hate for that to be proved wrong.
Especially if 30 Rock succeeds not because anyone actually wants to watch it but because it has friends in the right places. (Lorne Michaels, a man whose name carries much weight in the halls of NBC, is the executive producer of 30 Rock.)
The good news is, also according to Marc Berman,
...the slowly building Veronica Mars was up by 6 percent in both total viewers and women 18-49 (1.9/ 5) from one week earlier, with retention out of Gilmore Girls of 81 percent among target adults 18-34.
Quality-wise, IMO, the show's still wavering badly, but it's still good enough for me to root for a full season renwewal. I'd love to see what the writers could do with safe ground under their feet, and not feel that they were casting about wildly for viewers.
Then again, if the first season could survive a guest shot by Paris Hilton and go on to be as good as it was, nothing's impossible.
One final note: The Nine is on tonight at 10 on ABC, y'all, right after Lost. Join me, won't you?
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
Oh yeah...
TV ratings, via Marc Berman...
Later in a "Freshman series update" he describe Studio 60 as "on the fence."
What's weird is critics still seem to want Sorkin to tie up Matt & Harriet quickly. Wheras I, as I said last week, think they make a more interesting couple than most on TV and want him to take his time, always assuming he has any.
And I really wish he'd resist the tempation to tie up some of his other plots so quickly and neatly. Last night's episode was a great example.
Matt and Simon, a black member of the cast of the show within the show, go to a comedy club to see a black comedian who has been touted to them. Simon has been chiding Matt about the lack of black writers, and thus a black eye and voice in humor, on his writing staff.
Unfortunately, the comic they are there to see turns out to be using the worst kinds of stereotpes for his jokes about the-differences between white people and black people. And getting big laughs.
It was an effective scene, well-played by Matthew Perry and D.L. Hughley.
Later over a drink, Simon talks about growing up in South Central LA and how he now wants to help people as he himself was helped to get out of there. Again, an effective scene with much promise for the future. Matt could, for example, have gone back to work and initiated a minority writer training program with the guild.
But instead, suddenly they hear another black comedian onstage who's eating it-but his material shows original thought. They go backstage and hire the man-who happens to be from South Central near where Simon grew up-immidiately.
What an unbelivable (and unnecessary)coincidence.
Or maybe, just maybe, it's that last night of all nights I wasn't in a frame of mind to see a Lana Turner story enacted right in front of me. Yes, if you're just in the right place at the right time a magic wand will touch you and give you a job in television where you can make more money in a week than your parents made in a year.
Yes, it's just that easy.
Don't fucking lie to me, Sorkin.
Yesterday’s Losers:
...Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip (NBC)
First at 10 p.m., of course, was CBS’ rock-solid CSI: Miami at a 12.6/19 in the overnights, 17.49 million viewers and a 6.0/15 among adults 18-49. A distant second was NBC’s Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip (Overnights: 6.3/10; Viewers: 7.70 million; A18-49: 3.1/ 8), followed by ABC drama What About Brian (Overnights: 4.1/ 6; Viewers: 6.02 million; A18-49: 2.6/ 7). Both Studio 60 and What About Brian declined by double-digit percentages from their lead-ins, hence the loser’s listings.
Later in a "Freshman series update" he describe Studio 60 as "on the fence."
What's weird is critics still seem to want Sorkin to tie up Matt & Harriet quickly. Wheras I, as I said last week, think they make a more interesting couple than most on TV and want him to take his time, always assuming he has any.
And I really wish he'd resist the tempation to tie up some of his other plots so quickly and neatly. Last night's episode was a great example.
Matt and Simon, a black member of the cast of the show within the show, go to a comedy club to see a black comedian who has been touted to them. Simon has been chiding Matt about the lack of black writers, and thus a black eye and voice in humor, on his writing staff.
Unfortunately, the comic they are there to see turns out to be using the worst kinds of stereotpes for his jokes about the-differences between white people and black people. And getting big laughs.
It was an effective scene, well-played by Matthew Perry and D.L. Hughley.
Later over a drink, Simon talks about growing up in South Central LA and how he now wants to help people as he himself was helped to get out of there. Again, an effective scene with much promise for the future. Matt could, for example, have gone back to work and initiated a minority writer training program with the guild.
But instead, suddenly they hear another black comedian onstage who's eating it-but his material shows original thought. They go backstage and hire the man-who happens to be from South Central near where Simon grew up-immidiately.
What an unbelivable (and unnecessary)coincidence.
Or maybe, just maybe, it's that last night of all nights I wasn't in a frame of mind to see a Lana Turner story enacted right in front of me. Yes, if you're just in the right place at the right time a magic wand will touch you and give you a job in television where you can make more money in a week than your parents made in a year.
Yes, it's just that easy.
Don't fucking lie to me, Sorkin.
If you feel like a good book
...I can recommend one. Here's my latest Amazon review, of the second in a multi-volume biography of Orson Welles by actor/writer/director Simon Callow.
Monday, October 23, 2006
Reload
I discovered a few weeks ago that a couple of embedded videos I'd posted no longer work. So here they are again, just 'cos I like them. Plus something new, 'cause I know how short your attention span is.
I've never cared for Fleetwood Mac very much but I like Lindsey Buckingham a lot. I think he's the best singer-songwriter-guitarist ever to come out of my hometown of Palo Alto (and the first one who mentions Jerry Garcia gets belted right across the chops).
This song in particular I've loved ever since I saw the video on VH1 Classic. For a while I was holding out for a cool one-disc compilation of his work. Ideally to include, besides the above, the National Lampoon's Vacation soundtrack material and the incredibly powerful acoustic version of "Big Love" he did for the Fleetwood reunion tour:
But to date no such retrospectve exists. So a month ago or so I broke down and bought the Go Insane album. It's got 1984 written all over it, but as you can imagine I enjoy that.
The last clip, as I said at the time, is one of
I've never cared for Fleetwood Mac very much but I like Lindsey Buckingham a lot. I think he's the best singer-songwriter-guitarist ever to come out of my hometown of Palo Alto (and the first one who mentions Jerry Garcia gets belted right across the chops).
This song in particular I've loved ever since I saw the video on VH1 Classic. For a while I was holding out for a cool one-disc compilation of his work. Ideally to include, besides the above, the National Lampoon's Vacation soundtrack material and the incredibly powerful acoustic version of "Big Love" he did for the Fleetwood reunion tour:
But to date no such retrospectve exists. So a month ago or so I broke down and bought the Go Insane album. It's got 1984 written all over it, but as you can imagine I enjoy that.
The last clip, as I said at the time, is one of
...my favorite thing[s] that I've discovered so far via YouTube. It's basically everything you want rock n roll to be. It's kind of stupid, frankly a bit sexist, and a little childish.
I love it.
This is some sort of karma for the titty joke, isn't it.
Dear Author:
Thank you for your recent query to [Publisher].
We have reviewed your material, and unfortunately your project doesn't fit the demands of our current list.
We appreciate your interest in [Publisher] and wish you the best of success with your writing career.
Sincerely,
The [Publisher] Editorial staff.
................
I'm very close to letting go. Even closer than you know. So take what you can, take what you find. Take it all into your mind.
-OMD
I've been lookin for some time
I knew that I had to be much more
So pick yourself up, and dust yourself down...Pick yourself up and dust yourself down...
Into your mind,
Read the signs...Reload
-Junkie XL
I don't know what it is about Scarlett Johansson that makes me lose all my gentility
Ahem....Titty!
Thank you.
Okay, damnit, a Suri Cruise post
I've mostly been ignoring this. For what it's worth, I subscribe to the theory that Katie Holmes was never really pregnant. They announced that she'd given birth in time for Cruise to have something to talk about in interviews for his last picture.
Other than So what's it's like when you realize you've made a total ass of yourself in public? But anyway, the reason it took them so long to expose the baby to said public is that they hadn't cast the part yet.
Still, as I say, mostly I feel that it is in a strange way beneath my dignity to even comment on the thing. Fortunately, it is not below the dignity of Trent and his much-loved stencil at Pink Is The New Blog.
Trent?
Thank you, Trent.
Other than So what's it's like when you realize you've made a total ass of yourself in public? But anyway, the reason it took them so long to expose the baby to said public is that they hadn't cast the part yet.
Still, as I say, mostly I feel that it is in a strange way beneath my dignity to even comment on the thing. Fortunately, it is not below the dignity of Trent and his much-loved stencil at Pink Is The New Blog.
Trent?
Thank you, Trent.
One of the all-time greats
The Washington Post has a profile of "Doonesbury"-maker Garry Trudeau. Let the clicker beware: It's kind of lengthy, but if you share my opinion above, you'll definitely want to read it. If you're not as firm in that conviction, here are a few excerpts that may help you make up your mind.
As I've mentioned once or twice in the past, I think Stephen Colbert and especially Jon Stewart may be gaining on him; I think they're national treasures. But they've still only been doing it for a handful of years against his 30+.
But I like the "episodic comic novel" conceit. Makes him sound a little like Dickens-a comparison he'd no doubt disavow, but which doesn't seem to me completely wrongheaded.
Incidentally, here's where I show what a "Doonesbury"-nerd I am. Near the end of the profile the writer looks at a strip in which
B.D. cheated on Boopsie during his service in the first Gulf War, with a girl named Meg. They broke it off when she learned she was his superior officer but, after he'd come home, she returned to make a play for him and almost broke up said "eccentric but strong marriage."
When I say nerd, I mean nerd.
..."Doonesbury" ...survived and metamorphosed over the years into what is essentially an episodic comic novel, with so many active characters that Trudeau himself has been known to confuse them. "Doonesbury" has always remained topical, often controversial. Unapologetically liberal and almost religiously anti-establishment, Trudeau has been denounced by presidents and potentates and condemned on the floor of the U.S. Senate. He's also been described as America's greatest living satirist, mentioned in the same breath as Mark Twain and Ambrose Bierce.
As I've mentioned once or twice in the past, I think Stephen Colbert and especially Jon Stewart may be gaining on him; I think they're national treasures. But they've still only been doing it for a handful of years against his 30+.
But I like the "episodic comic novel" conceit. Makes him sound a little like Dickens-a comparison he'd no doubt disavow, but which doesn't seem to me completely wrongheaded.
LIKE ANY SATIRIST WHOSE WORK ENDURES, Trudeau has been right about a lot of things. From the moment that hippie college deejay Mark Slackmeyer looked at the reader and gleefully declared that an as-yet-unindicted Attorney General John Mitchell was "Guilty! Guilty! Guilty!" Trudeau has shown a world-class instinct for piercing a babble of crosstalk and nailing the truth. He was right about Vietnam (When a conservative columnist said that he saw a "a light at the end of a tunnel," Michael asked him: "When you've dug yourself into a hole, why do you always insist on calling it a tunnel?"). Trudeau was right about the greed of '80s big business, about the cynicism of the marketing industry, about Bill Clinton's flippy-flop, polls-based approach to governance ("Doonesbury" regularly portrayed Clinton as a greasy waffle).
"Occasionally, people accuse me of courage," he says. "And that's wrong. I'm sitting on a perch of safety. Cartoonists have a tar-baby immunity. The more people react to us, and the more angrily they react, the better it is for us. So we're invulnerable. It just doesn't seem fair."
Incidentally, here's where I show what a "Doonesbury"-nerd I am. Near the end of the profile the writer looks at a strip in which
B.D. appears to be considering cheating on Boopsie, which hasn't happened to our knowledge in 20-plus years of an eccentric but strong marriage.
B.D. cheated on Boopsie during his service in the first Gulf War, with a girl named Meg. They broke it off when she learned she was his superior officer but, after he'd come home, she returned to make a play for him and almost broke up said "eccentric but strong marriage."
When I say nerd, I mean nerd.
Fooled into falling in love!
I almost didn't even know what to say about this one. But there's obviously more to the story...
Or on a film noir poster, with a glamour shot of the female lead staring agonizingly out at us. I see Nora-Jane Noone or Leelee Sobieski in the part. I mean, they could certainly convince me to kill a man...
Sailor kills Marine after lie about rape
Petty Officer 3rd Class Cooper Jackson, 23, pleaded guilty Monday to premeditated murder, kidnapping, impersonating a Naval Criminal Investigative Service agent and obstruction of justice in connection with the death of Cpl. Justin L. Huff, 23.
Federal agents had testified at his Article 32 hearing, the military equivalent of a grand jury investigation, that Jackson had been fooled into falling in love with a woman who called herself Samantha and made up a story about being raped by servicemen.
"Samantha" turned out to be Ashley Elrod, a 22-year-old hotel clerk on North Carolina's Outer Banks, who testified that she lied about being raped. She said she "might have" told Jackson that one of the Marines was named Huff or Huffman, and she said Jackson called her after Huff was killed. Elrod has not been charged.
Murder committed in the name of what was thought to be love but turns out to be a lie told by an apparent femme fatale.
It's a freaking pulp novel. Even the words-
"Fooled into falling in love!"-belong on the back of a paperback.
Or on a film noir poster, with a glamour shot of the female lead staring agonizingly out at us. I see Nora-Jane Noone or Leelee Sobieski in the part. I mean, they could certainly convince me to kill a man...
Sunday, October 22, 2006
It's not revenge, it's justice. Repeat. And again.
I thought the profile of Nancy Pelosi that Lesley Stahl did on 60 Minutes tonight came off as an attempted smear that backfired. It was packed with sly sexism and loaded, juicy words like "revenge" but in the process, it made her look a lot better (to me) than may have been intended..
Maybe Democrats aren't all cynical hypocrites who are afraid of catching cooties from a girl (especially if she's competent).
It ended with an attempt to get the Democratic leader to pledge-again-that should her party find itself in a position of power in a couple of weeks, they will not hurt Bush too much. He's already been through a lot, poor guy.
As I've expressed before, few things make me angrier-or better explain why I don't watch TV news much-than the idea that the motivation for coming down on Bush and Cheney can be attributed to "revenge". No, they have committed crimes. It's not revenge, it's justice.
That said, it gave Pelosi a chance to put her justification for taking impeachment off the table better than I have previously seen it expressed.
It's not good enough for me-my "good enough" involves jail time, but I'm not completely naieve-but at least it does make me feel I better understand the political position that Pelosi is taking.
Well, she’s certainly brought order to the Democrats. She has insisted on no more bickering in public and just saying "no" to nearly everything that comes out of the Bush White House. In other words, party discipline: kind of like the Republicans do it. As a result, Democrats now vote together more often than they have since Eisenhower was president. How has someone so clearly not one of the boys managed to keep them in line?
Maybe Democrats aren't all cynical hypocrites who are afraid of catching cooties from a girl (especially if she's competent).
It ended with an attempt to get the Democratic leader to pledge-again-that should her party find itself in a position of power in a couple of weeks, they will not hurt Bush too much. He's already been through a lot, poor guy.
She has pledged that as Speaker she would give the Republicans rights they’ve denied the Democrats, like allowing them to introduce amendments to bills. But she may have trouble reining in the Democrats’ appetite for revenge. There’s already talk of multiple investigations and impeachment of the president.
As I've expressed before, few things make me angrier-or better explain why I don't watch TV news much-than the idea that the motivation for coming down on Bush and Cheney can be attributed to "revenge". No, they have committed crimes. It's not revenge, it's justice.
That said, it gave Pelosi a chance to put her justification for taking impeachment off the table better than I have previously seen it expressed.
This election is about [George Bush & Dick Cheney]. This is a referendum on them. Making them lame ducks is good enough for me."
It's not good enough for me-my "good enough" involves jail time, but I'm not completely naieve-but at least it does make me feel I better understand the political position that Pelosi is taking.
Friday, October 20, 2006
John McCain shows why he is in no way a joke who has sacrificed any and all respect he was due as a war hero on the altar of his petty, petty ambition
The "good" republican still has a plan for how we might achive victory in Iraq, if anyone is interested in listening. It comes down to basically two words: More troops! But, to re-state my question of just a few weeks shy of a year ago: Where you gonna get 'em, John?
We don't have any more troops. And there doesn't exactly seem to be a flood of would-be future dead soldiers showing up at the recruitment office. Proving the truth of the old saying you can't fool all of the people all of the time.
Of course, there is a way countries can forcibly swell the ranks of their armies if need be. I mean, if they really and truly believe victory is possible and necessary. But, as McCain and his ilk well know, the only thing that could possibly make the combat in Iraq less popular would be if they re-instated a draft.
So we're left with this serious and not-at-all politically motivated plan from the "good" republican, which Unclaimed Territory has summed up like this:
We don't have any more troops. And there doesn't exactly seem to be a flood of would-be future dead soldiers showing up at the recruitment office. Proving the truth of the old saying you can't fool all of the people all of the time.
Of course, there is a way countries can forcibly swell the ranks of their armies if need be. I mean, if they really and truly believe victory is possible and necessary. But, as McCain and his ilk well know, the only thing that could possibly make the combat in Iraq less popular would be if they re-instated a draft.
So we're left with this serious and not-at-all politically motivated plan from the "good" republican, which Unclaimed Territory has summed up like this:
....John McCain's bold, straight-talking Plan for Victory in Iraq is to wait for Rich Lowry, Jonah Goldberg, Peter Beinert and Glenn Reynolds to realize how Western Civilization Hangs in the Balance in Iraq and that only more troops can save us. And once they realize that, they are going to stand up bravely and risk their lives in combat in Iraq -- waves and waves and waves of them -- and that will fortify our military presence there and we will win. Waiting for a big thunderbolt from the sky to strike down the Insurgents seems like a more probable and rational plan.
Oh god, it's his Fisher King moment
The Mahablog has an entry about how Bush seems to be taking a surprisingly timid response to North Korea. It suddenly hit me: Of course he is, because the last time he got into his cowboy suit, he started an ass kicking that hasn't stopped yet, and it's got to have had some effect on him.
It's his Fisher King moment. The story of the Fisher King is about a man who sees the Holy Grail in a fire, but when he reaches out for it, it's gone. Psychologically, it's been interpreted as being about a psychic wound that all men suffer the first time our reach exceeds our grasp.
George W. Bush has shown he's good for exactly one thing, and that is getting dressed up in manly uniforms and talking tough. And now he can't even do that right. Never mind the fact that actually, a bit of "cowboy diplomacy" might be called for in the case of North Korea.
They're a country that actually could be a threat to us-something Iraq never was and never could have been. But on some level Bush must know how badly he's screwed up Iraq (whether or not he'll ever be able to admit it publicly) and now he's once bitten, twice shy.
Sometimes I'm amazed I even have the fortitude to keep trying...
It's his Fisher King moment. The story of the Fisher King is about a man who sees the Holy Grail in a fire, but when he reaches out for it, it's gone. Psychologically, it's been interpreted as being about a psychic wound that all men suffer the first time our reach exceeds our grasp.
George W. Bush has shown he's good for exactly one thing, and that is getting dressed up in manly uniforms and talking tough. And now he can't even do that right. Never mind the fact that actually, a bit of "cowboy diplomacy" might be called for in the case of North Korea.
They're a country that actually could be a threat to us-something Iraq never was and never could have been. But on some level Bush must know how badly he's screwed up Iraq (whether or not he'll ever be able to admit it publicly) and now he's once bitten, twice shy.
Sometimes I'm amazed I even have the fortitude to keep trying...
Thursday, October 19, 2006
I could die from all this irony
TV ratings:
Good. 30 Rock I want to die mostly because I don't understand the overhyping of Tina Fey, but also because if there's going to be a series about life behind the scenes at a sketch comedy show, well...you know which one I want it to be.
And as indicated by yesterday's terse post, the second episode of 20 Good Years was a big let-down after a pilot I genuinely enjoyed, so now I feel even less attached to it.
Here, though, we got trouble, because The Nine is still really good, sometimes phenomenally good. Last night's script, written by K.J. Steinberg who co-created the series with her brother Hank, was especially strong.
I can think of very little in last night's episode that I would categorize as "filler." No matter what's going on onscreen it's important and worth paying attention to.
As I've mentioned the director Alex Graves came up on West Wing-so it's no surprise to me how much I like that aspect of the show. And some of the actors must be doing the best work of their careers-I admit I didn't watch Party Of Five much but I can't believe Scott Wolf was better there than he is here.
It's the kind of show that if it fails, I don't want to know what wins.
Meanwhile, as I've been tracking, NBC has their own troubles with a couple of critically-praised, struggling in the ratings series; that I like too. So here's what they're doing about it: They're replacing one with the other.
I could die from all this irony.
-Yesterday’s Losers:
30 Rock (NBC), 20 Good Years (NBC), The Nine (ABC)
...week two of NBC sitcoms 30 Rock and 20 Good Years bled by double-digit percentages from last week’s already disappointing debuts.
Good. 30 Rock I want to die mostly because I don't understand the overhyping of Tina Fey, but also because if there's going to be a series about life behind the scenes at a sketch comedy show, well...you know which one I want it to be.
And as indicated by yesterday's terse post, the second episode of 20 Good Years was a big let-down after a pilot I genuinely enjoyed, so now I feel even less attached to it.
At 10 p.m...Third (behind baseball on Fox as well) was ABC’s failing The Nine (Overnights: 6.8/11; Viewers: 8.59 million; A18-49: 3.2/ 9), with erosion from lead-in Lost of a considerable 60 percent in the overnights, 53 percent in total viewers and 49 percent among adults 18-49.
Here, though, we got trouble, because The Nine is still really good, sometimes phenomenally good. Last night's script, written by K.J. Steinberg who co-created the series with her brother Hank, was especially strong.
I can think of very little in last night's episode that I would categorize as "filler." No matter what's going on onscreen it's important and worth paying attention to.
As I've mentioned the director Alex Graves came up on West Wing-so it's no surprise to me how much I like that aspect of the show. And some of the actors must be doing the best work of their careers-I admit I didn't watch Party Of Five much but I can't believe Scott Wolf was better there than he is here.
It's the kind of show that if it fails, I don't want to know what wins.
Meanwhile, as I've been tracking, NBC has their own troubles with a couple of critically-praised, struggling in the ratings series; that I like too. So here's what they're doing about it: They're replacing one with the other.
-NBC To Test Friday Night Lights on Monday:
In an effort to boost viewing levels and test the waters for a potential new time period, NBC will air struggling Tuesday drama Friday Night Lights in the Monday 10 p.m. hour in place of Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip on Oct. 30. No word on when, or if, Studio 60 will air that week.
I could die from all this irony.
The animals are pissed
An 81-year-old boater was in critical condition Thursday after a stingray flopped onto his boat and stabbed him, leaving a foot-long barb in his chest, authorities said.
"It was a freak accident," said Lighthouse Point acting fire Chief David Donzella. "It's very odd that the thing jumped out of the water and stung him. We still can't believe it."
Ellen Pikitch, a professor of marine biology and fisheries at the University of Miami, who has been studying stingrays for decades, said they are generally docile.
"Something like this is really, really extraordinarily rare," she said. "Even when they are under duress, they don't usually attack."
Dear god, Steve Irwin was only a warning.
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
This can't be right.
According to Media News:
Yet according to Media Life...
Meanwhile, back at Media News,
So, to review.
One show I like-Friday Night Lights-is either a loser, or the lights have just gotten a little bit brighter, depending on who you trust. Though ironically, I hated the way the last episode ended-it was one of those "oh please tell me they're not going there...oh fuck! They are!" moments.
One show I'd be perfectly happy to see cancelled before the end of its season-Gilmore Girls-is down.
And Veronica Mars gets some positive news after an episode that was, while more uneven than the one last week that restored my faith, still better than it's been in a while.
It isn't supposed to work like this. The shows I like are supposed to lose, and the shows I've turned against are supposed to go up. On Tuesday nights, only the always-watchable Boston Legal is supposed to be solid.
Either I'm going to get an acceptance letter from a publisher today or I should run right out and play the lottery.
-Yesterday’s Losers:
Friday Night Lights (NBC)
Over at NBC, the news remains bleak at 8 p.m., with week three of Friday Night Lights sinking further, with a mere 4.0/ 6 in the overnights (#4), 6.61 million viewers (#4) and a 2.7/ 7 among adults 18-49 (#4).
Yet according to Media Life...
Brighter night for
'Friday Night Lights'
Last week NBC gave “Friday Night Lights,” its struggling new drama, a symbolic vote of confidence, ordering several more scripts for the series. While short of a full season order, the gesture indicated that NBC will stand behind the series for a bit in hopes that its audience will build.
However, unless “Lights” continues to build and pushes over a 3.0, it seems likely the show will be relocated in the not-so-distant future. Friday night is a good possibility for the show, perhaps swapping with strong new game show “1 vs 100” or being replaced by midseason returner “Crossing Jordan,” whose timeslot still hasn’t been determined.
NBC has remained aggressive in promoting the show, which got very good reviews, on new shows like “Sunday Night Football” and its Monday dramas.
Meanwhile, back at Media News,
Over at the CW, Gilmore Girls remains down but not out at a 3.8/ 6 in the overnights (#5), 4.77 million viewers (#5) and a 2.0/ 5 among adults 18-49 (#5) at 8 p.m.
-Keep a Positive Eye On:
Veronica Mars (UPN)
Veronica Mars followed with a more distant 2.1/ 3 in the overnights, 3.22 million viewers and a 1.4/ 4 among adults 18-49 at 9 p.m. But before anyone starts panicking, former UPN time period occupant Sex, Love & Secrets was considerably worse on the year-ago evening at a 1.2/ 2 in the overnights, 1.57 million viewers and a 0.7/ 2 among adults 18-49. The year-ago performance for Veronica Mars (on UPN, Wednesday, Oct. 19, 2005) was a 2.7/ 4 in the overnights, 3.03 million viewers and a 1.3/ 3 among adults 18-49. Do the math, and that’s an increase of 190,000 viewers and 8 percent among adults 18-49. Veronica Mars also posted a season high among adults 18-34 (1.8/ 5), with its second best performance in adults 18-34, adults 18-49 and women 18-49. And week-to-week, Veronica was up by as much as 20 percent demographically. Yes, Veronica Mars fans -- you heard me right!
So, to review.
One show I like-Friday Night Lights-is either a loser, or the lights have just gotten a little bit brighter, depending on who you trust. Though ironically, I hated the way the last episode ended-it was one of those "oh please tell me they're not going there...oh fuck! They are!" moments.
One show I'd be perfectly happy to see cancelled before the end of its season-Gilmore Girls-is down.
And Veronica Mars gets some positive news after an episode that was, while more uneven than the one last week that restored my faith, still better than it's been in a while.
It isn't supposed to work like this. The shows I like are supposed to lose, and the shows I've turned against are supposed to go up. On Tuesday nights, only the always-watchable Boston Legal is supposed to be solid.
Either I'm going to get an acceptance letter from a publisher today or I should run right out and play the lottery.
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
Shorter Greenwald: I got your "San Francisco left-wing values" right here, Newt
If you'd care to see the longer version...
Oh Wesley, Wesley, Wesley, Wesley, Wesley...
Wesley Snipes. Somewhat underrated actor-I think better sometimes in character roles than leads. Allegedly, the onetime abusive boyfriend of Halle Berry. Now, a literal fugitive from justice.
Call out the U.S. Marshalls.
Call out the U.S. Marshalls.
I'm not normally much one for collectable figures
But by God, if I were...
Ah, Cordelia. Sweet, sweet Cordelia and her too-tragic end (or do I mean too-tragic Cordelia and her sweet, sweet...ahem!).
Brought to life by the underrated acting of Charisma Carpenter and killed because Joss Whedon apparently can't think of anything better to do with strong women characters.
I just hope they haven't followed in his footsteps on Veronica Mars-I stubbornly insist on the "We did not see a body" rule.
But anyway, Cordy's character was actually not so sweet-that's why I loved her.
Cool story for any and all of you who watch The Colbert Report
It's the story of the woman who won the "Stephen Colbert Green Screen Challenge!” If you watched the episode on which she won, you know they pulled a very funny joke. It was announced that it was down to two finalists, Bonnie R, who was on the phone and, there in the studio, one "George L." From Marin, California.
Until he walked out it didn't occur to me that it would be, as it was, George Lucas. Sometimes I'm slow. Lucas' people had put together their own entry using the, shall we say, many resources they had at hand.
One or two of you may know that I've had certain, shall we say, "issues" with Lucas in the past-for what I see as his cyncism, sexism and general insults to the intelligence. But I was giving him lots of credit for showing up and going along in the spirit of the joke. He had more of my goodwill than he's had for literally years.
Then they played his video. Even on a 30 second satire, the man can't write dialogue. Which is only one of the reasons I was smiling inside and out when Bonnie won (what was, after all, not a contest!).
Until he walked out it didn't occur to me that it would be, as it was, George Lucas. Sometimes I'm slow. Lucas' people had put together their own entry using the, shall we say, many resources they had at hand.
One or two of you may know that I've had certain, shall we say, "issues" with Lucas in the past-for what I see as his cyncism, sexism and general insults to the intelligence. But I was giving him lots of credit for showing up and going along in the spirit of the joke. He had more of my goodwill than he's had for literally years.
Then they played his video. Even on a 30 second satire, the man can't write dialogue. Which is only one of the reasons I was smiling inside and out when Bonnie won (what was, after all, not a contest!).
Here's a couple clearly headed for several happy, fun-filled years
I really can't overstress what a resource avore de pensamentos (whatever that means) has turned out to be.
To cut a long story short I lost my MIND
Media Life Magazine:
Meanwhile, I find myself continuing to really like it. Not only because of Sorkin's dialogue, or because the show is original and smart, or even fannish loyalty (though all those things are factors).
I'm starting to really care about the characters, especially Matt & Harriet. Which is one of the reasons the next paragraph of the article makes me madder the more I think about it.
I'd argue that just because the characters aren't jumping into bed with each other with the rapidity they do on "Grey's Anatomy" -I'm led to understand-it doesn't mean the love story isn't going anywhere.
I think it's clear they are going somewhere, but it's going to take a little time (if only they have it). Especially since with Matt & Harriet, Sorkin has set up a love story that has more obstacles than the umpteen variations on Sam & Diane or David & Maddy we've been seeing for the past 20-25 years.
What do you do when you love and admire someone who loves and admires you but who believes, at her core, something almost diametrically opposed from what you believe at yours? It's a bigger question than most shows even think to ask, and I almost want to say shame on the reporter above for not recognizing that.
And "no overall plotline giving the show urgency"? What the hell? When did that become a requirement of weekly, episodic, network television? Shows like "Lost" are the exception, not the rule. The closest most shows come is a certain soap opera element, other than that it's mostly "this week's case."
Even on "West Wing" there wasn't an "overall plotline" outside the place and the job. Same for "Sports Night." And in both of them, and now "Studio 60," for me the overall plotline is really about getting to know these people and seeing how they handle the big questions in their lives.
I don't need to see them trapped on a mysterious island for that to be "urgent."
NBC's 'Studio 60' tumbles to new low
Troubled drama falls 18 percent, to a 3.1 in 18-49s
After recording its first week-to-week uptick in ratings last week, NBC’s highly touted drama “Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip” dipped to a series-low for last night’s episode, erasing all of the previous week’s gains and then some.
The 10 p.m. show averaged a 3.1 in adults 18-49, according to Nielsen overnights, down 18 percent from last week’s 3.8.
Meanwhile, I find myself continuing to really like it. Not only because of Sorkin's dialogue, or because the show is original and smart, or even fannish loyalty (though all those things are factors).
I'm starting to really care about the characters, especially Matt & Harriet. Which is one of the reasons the next paragraph of the article makes me madder the more I think about it.
After an excellent pilot, the show has slumped into inertia of sorts, with a love story that doesn’t go anywhere and no overall plotline giving the show urgency.
I'd argue that just because the characters aren't jumping into bed with each other with the rapidity they do on "Grey's Anatomy" -I'm led to understand-it doesn't mean the love story isn't going anywhere.
I think it's clear they are going somewhere, but it's going to take a little time (if only they have it). Especially since with Matt & Harriet, Sorkin has set up a love story that has more obstacles than the umpteen variations on Sam & Diane or David & Maddy we've been seeing for the past 20-25 years.
What do you do when you love and admire someone who loves and admires you but who believes, at her core, something almost diametrically opposed from what you believe at yours? It's a bigger question than most shows even think to ask, and I almost want to say shame on the reporter above for not recognizing that.
And "no overall plotline giving the show urgency"? What the hell? When did that become a requirement of weekly, episodic, network television? Shows like "Lost" are the exception, not the rule. The closest most shows come is a certain soap opera element, other than that it's mostly "this week's case."
Even on "West Wing" there wasn't an "overall plotline" outside the place and the job. Same for "Sports Night." And in both of them, and now "Studio 60," for me the overall plotline is really about getting to know these people and seeing how they handle the big questions in their lives.
I don't need to see them trapped on a mysterious island for that to be "urgent."
Monday, October 16, 2006
Fun with polls
According to a poll in the current issue of Time Magazine, when asked the question:
Did the disclosure about Foley's sexually explicit instant messages to teenage pages and the handling of this sistuation by the house Republican leadership make you less likely to vote for the Republican candidate in your district, more likely, or did it really have no effect on how you will vote?
25% said it made them less likely
4% said it made them more likely
68% said it had no effect
I'd like to repeat that. 4% of registered voters said Foley being exposed as a pedophile, and the GOP congress having covered it up...made them more likely to vote for a Republican. Not only that, Time Magazine knew that was a possibility, and allowed for it on the questions in their poll.
Even allowing for the margin of error, I find that signifigant. Heck, in Republican mathamatical terms, one percent is enough to turn a dead heat into a mandate-giving landslide.
Proof positive that talk of Hollywood values being out of touch is completely exaggerated
According to this post, Robin Williams was paid "only" one million dollars to star in his new movie, Man of the Year. "Only" one million dollars. And they're reporting it like he was digging at the bottom of a trash can for cheese or something.
"Only" one million dollars. Would anyone out there like to pay me "only" one million dollars to make a film with some great characters and dialogue?
"Only" one million dollars.
It's times like this I think I'm playing for the wrong team in the culture wars.
"Only" one million dollars.
Sheesh...
"Only" one million dollars. Would anyone out there like to pay me "only" one million dollars to make a film with some great characters and dialogue?
"Only" one million dollars.
It's times like this I think I'm playing for the wrong team in the culture wars.
"Only" one million dollars.
Sheesh...
Random Flickr-Blogging: IMG_5854
Source
Ever notice how some dicks can just completely fuck up an otherwise perfectly good landscape?
And now, the completely unsubtle political version of that joke: In the background, we have the beautiful landscape of Capetown, South Africa. In the foreground, we have a stupid white man. And now, while the analogy sinks in, let's move on...
It was sometimes said that Samantha was just a tad too defensive around men.
Source
I know with absolute cold-iron certainly that the same dick who fucked up the landscape above also owns this car, that he apparently thought was more important than the pleasant mountains green behind it.
Source
Bob Dylan fans, take a look. That's right. Take a good long look. This is what you really look like, and anyone who tells you otherwise must love you very much.
Source
When his head lolled to one side, betraying the lack of any spinal column to keep it upright, Susanne realized to her horror the awful truth: She had been speaking to a Democrat. Our cameras caught her in a frozen grin, even as she tensed her leg muscles, preparing to leap away.
Source
Sunday, October 15, 2006
To any of the rest of you who may have been watching Comedy Central's autism fundraiser
Yes, I saw that the generous young woman who won the in-theater auction to appear onstage in the finale...was named Keitha. Freaky.
Anger and passion are always the fashion
In Unclaimed Territory this morning:
Read the whole thing, to which I'll just add by asking the question: What does it say about what spineless fucking jellyfish they are that after six years of this shit, three weeks before an election we still have to phrase it:
If the Democrats win.
What does it say? It says, the Democrats are still the party of John Kerry. They're going to lose. They deserve to.
The problem is, we don't.
...the fear-driven advice to avoid strong positions because those positions are unpopular becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy over and over and over. When Democrats are continuously told to avoid taking a stand for their positions, their positions will inevitably be unpopular because they have failed to advocate them forcefully. Viewpoints become popular when persuasive leaders make a passionate and persuasive case for those viewpoints. If the public sees one party viciously attacking Position X, while the other party defensively and half-heartedly says that Position X is not as awful as it seems and, besides, they only half-believe in Position X, the public will inevitably conclude that Position X is wrong and even toxic. What other conclusion can one draw if nobody is willing to advocate that position?
If Democrats win in three weeks, it will be for one simple reason -- because the country has been so awakened and stirred by anger and intense dissatisfaction with our system of one-party Republican rule that they will be motivated to turn out incumbents in large numbers and even change their normal voting patterns. Nobody disputes that this passion is one that is oppositional in nature. It is driven by a disgust for the views and behavior of Republicans, not by an embrace of Democrats.
Read the whole thing, to which I'll just add by asking the question: What does it say about what spineless fucking jellyfish they are that after six years of this shit, three weeks before an election we still have to phrase it:
If the Democrats win.
What does it say? It says, the Democrats are still the party of John Kerry. They're going to lose. They deserve to.
The problem is, we don't.
If only it were funny.
Columnist and Python Terry Jones welcomes George W. Bush to an entirely different kind of flying circus.
If you need to get the bad taste out of your mouth-not from Jones' writing but from the implications of his biting satire-here's a little Peter Cook. From back in the days when they still used to laugh at it:
I write to you in my capacity as secretary of the World League of Despots.
It is with great pleasure that I am finally able to extend an official invitation to you to join our ranks.
I cannot, however, disguise the fact that we adjudicators were extremely anxious when you announced your intention to remove from office one of our most stalwart members, Mr Saddam Hussein. However, we need not have worried. According to a recent UN report, you have ensured that there are now even more human rights abuses in Iraq than there were under Saddam. No less than 10% of those in custody are being physically or psychologically abused. Well done!
Of course, your unstinting efforts to make torture an internationally accepted aspect of human life have surpassed everything we could have ever hoped for. I don't think there is a single member of the league who could have imagined, six short years ago, that our activities in tormenting our fellow creatures would once again be recognised as acceptable, civilised behaviour, as it once was in the middle ages.
If you need to get the bad taste out of your mouth-not from Jones' writing but from the implications of his biting satire-here's a little Peter Cook. From back in the days when they still used to laugh at it:
It's a wonderful league, the World Domination League. The aims, as published in the manifesto, are total domination of the world by 1958. That's what we're planning to do. We've had to revise it - we're hoping to bring a new manifesto out with a more realistic target. How we aim to go about it is as follows: we shall move about into people's rooms and say, "Excuse me, we are the World Domination League - may we dominate you?" Then, if they say "Get out", of course we give up.
Saturday, October 14, 2006
A tinker's cuss
I'd tinker with some of the language, but basically Anonymous Liberal has a good suggestion for a Democratic campaign ad.
May not have been so exciting?
You scored as The Fifth Doctor (Peter Davidson). The quiet Fifth Doctor is the one for you. He may not have been so exciting, but his steady calm kept you interested. Maybe you just like cricket.
Which Doctor Who are you?
created with QuizFarm.com
The Fifth Doctor (Peter Davidson) | 81% | ||
The Sixth Doctor (Colin Baker) | 75% | ||
The Fourth Doctor (Tom Baker) | 44% | ||
The Seventh Doctor (Sylvester McCoy) | 31% | ||
The Ninth Doctor (Christoper Eccleston) | 25% | ||
The Eighth Doctor (Paul McGann) | 25% | ||
The First Doctor (William Hartnell) | 19% | ||
The Third Doctor (Jon Pertwee) | 13% | ||
The Second Doctor (Patrick Troughton) | 13% |
Which Doctor Who are you?
created with QuizFarm.com
Doctor Who geek-out moment follows while I unravel this. Those of you who don't speak the language may feel free to move on to the Godley & Creme video.
The above damnation with faint praise (not only that, they've spelt his name wrong) only goes to show you: Peter Davison is the Rodney Dangerfield of Doctors Who.
It wasn't his steady calm that kept me interested, it was that he was the best damn actor ever to play the Doctor, with some of my best-loved scripts. I expected to see him, Tom Baker, Christopher Eccelston and Sylvester McCoy in the top third or so.
They are my favorite Doctors, in roughly that order, though McCoy gives Eccelston more of a fight for third place if we're including the novel, New Adventures version. I am surprised to see Colin Baker score so high-though I suppose it's not him I think was so bad, just 98% of his scripts.
He had the worst ones until a few, shall we say, "controversial" episodes David Tennant (who doesn't appear on this list) was lumbered with. But: Paul McGann above Hartnell, Pertwee or Troughton?
I don't think so! If it were up to me, McGann would be relegated to Peter Cushing-like status. He'd certainly come after all of the above including Tennant in any list I made...
Geek-out moment ends.
Friday, October 13, 2006
It's the sound of my tears fallin', Or is it the rain?
I wanted to run this as a fitting conclusion, I thought, to the "songs that make me cry" post last month. But at the time the only versions YouTube had started with the most hideously inappropriate voice-over announcer I've ever heard.
Fortunately, I just looked again. Here's the excellent and beautiful "Cry."
Roger's (on the way) back!
Roger Ebert writes from rehab. No, not that kind...I mean physical rehab, as in he's having to learn how to walk again, but
I don't know if he'll ever write those memoirs, but I'm anxiously waiting for my copy of the new anthology "Awake in the Dark: The Best of Roger Ebert" to come in at my local library.
During all of this, I didn't lose any marbles. My thinking is intact and my mental process doesn't require rehabilitation. Visits from colleagues at the Chicago Sun-Times, "Ebert & Roeper," ABC-7 and the film world kept me informed -- although, curiously, I found myself more interested in plunging into the depths of classic novels ("Persuasion," "Great Expectations," "The Ambassadors") than watching a lot of DVDs. I prefer to see the new Oliver Stone, Martin Scorsese and Clint Eastwood films on a big screen, for example.
I have discovered a goodness and decency in people as exhibited in all the letters, e-mails, flowers, gifts and prayers that have been directed my way. I am overwhelmed and humbled. I offer you my most sincere thanks and my deep and abiding gratitude. If I ever write my memoirs, I have some spellbinding material.
I don't know if he'll ever write those memoirs, but I'm anxiously waiting for my copy of the new anthology "Awake in the Dark: The Best of Roger Ebert" to come in at my local library.
No you didn't, Mel
I've been avoiding the Mel Gibson sit-and-spin tour '06. But then I read this. Gibson told Diane Sawyer,
No you didn't, Mel. You got to make your film, presumably the way you saw it in your head. You got to release your film. Widely. Your film even made lots of money, but if it hadn't, you still didn't have your rights violated as an artist.
Your rights as an artist do not include bullet-proof vests whenever someone wants to take a metaphorical shot at you. Your only rights as an artist should be the right to make what you want, the way you want, and get it seen and/or heard. You get to do that.
And on behalf of artists everywhere who are losing their minds trying to bring something beautiful into this world and finding nothing but walls everywhere they turn, fuck you. Fuck you for trying to trade on the "suffering artist" card.
Especially to cover-up the fact that a drunken slip of the lip revealed your bigoted feelings for what they are, but really, fuck you for doing it at all. You have artistic opportunities available to you that most of us can only hope for, and fuck you for pretending for one second that we should have sympathy for you because "the Jews made you feel bad."
In fact, goddamn you for treating your privilege so callously.
he admitted that his anger towards the Jews might have been triggered by lingering resentment for charges of anti-Semitism he took in the aftermath of "Passion": "I had my rights violated...as an artist,"
No you didn't, Mel. You got to make your film, presumably the way you saw it in your head. You got to release your film. Widely. Your film even made lots of money, but if it hadn't, you still didn't have your rights violated as an artist.
Your rights as an artist do not include bullet-proof vests whenever someone wants to take a metaphorical shot at you. Your only rights as an artist should be the right to make what you want, the way you want, and get it seen and/or heard. You get to do that.
And on behalf of artists everywhere who are losing their minds trying to bring something beautiful into this world and finding nothing but walls everywhere they turn, fuck you. Fuck you for trying to trade on the "suffering artist" card.
Especially to cover-up the fact that a drunken slip of the lip revealed your bigoted feelings for what they are, but really, fuck you for doing it at all. You have artistic opportunities available to you that most of us can only hope for, and fuck you for pretending for one second that we should have sympathy for you because "the Jews made you feel bad."
In fact, goddamn you for treating your privilege so callously.
Vengance is mine, sayeth the writer
Better Off Dead writer/director Savage Steve Holland on his much-loved film:
YES!
Better Off Dead is a true story, pretty much. It’s an exaggerated true story.
So there was a girl you were that broken-hearted over?
SS: Oh yeah.
Have you ever spoken to her again? Does she know the movie is about her?
SS: That’s a great question. It’s really weird but she really broke my heart, and even through college I was still bummed out about it, but life went on. Then I made this funny movie. And like 6 years later, I got a call, I don’t know how she got my number, and she said, “I’ve been in therapy because I saw your movie and I had no idea."
YES!
Death of a comedy writer, slightly revised
Jerry Belson, Emmy-winning comedy writer, dies of cancer at 68
His best-known work is probably the sitcoms he wrote with his friend and former writing partner Garry Marshall in the 1960s and '70s, the two developed the series "The Odd Couple" from the play and film by Neil Simon.
He also did some good screenplay work, both credited and uncredited. I'm a particular fan of the 1975 film "Smile", a good satire of beauty pageants that Belson wrote 25 years before "Miss Congeniality." According to the IMDB, which we have every reason to trust, he contributed to Spielberg's 1989 film "Always," which I've long thought deserved a second look.
I remember seeing the 1987 film "Surrender," with Michael Caine, which Belson wrote and directed, and thinking that it had a lovely first act, rich with possibilities. Almost none of which grew into anything. And late in life I used to see his name on "The Drew Carey Show," but it probably wasn't his best work (and it certainly wasn't Carey's).
There are one or two good stories about Belson in Marshall's autobiography, "Wake Me When It's Funny." A couple of my favorites:
When he saw a new house my sister Penny had bought, he said, "What a lovely place to live if life were worth living."
When told about a ninety-eight-year-old woman who had died in an accident, he said, "Skiing?"
Given Belson's oft-remarked skill for the darkly comic, I like to think he'd have liked the fact that his obituaries are running on Friday the 13th.
Thursday, October 12, 2006
This is getting freaky
Hey, you guys remember a couple of weeks ago when I decided to try Law & Order: Criminal Intent, which I'd never seen before? And as luck would have it, found a guest star that week was Anton Yelchin, formerly Byrd on Huff?
Well tonight, I decided to give Supernatural a try again. The show had stopped doing it for me before the end of the first season, but I'd seen an ad for this week's episode that made it look good.
Next thing you know I'm watching the episode opening credits, and whose name should flash up as a guest star? Amber Benson, formerly the late, lamented witch Tara on Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
A good and very un-Tara-like performance, I thought (and I mean that as a compliment). I wish the part had been larger, but I would, wouldn't I? I also noted with some satisfaction that the character seems to have possibilities for return. It seems likely there are some people writing to the producers and/or network to suggest that even as I type.
That's twice in less than a month I've tuned into shows I don't normally watch, only to find after the fact that actors I've admired in other series were appearing in them. Not only that, both were in series that disappointed me late in their runs (at least Buffy made it for five seasons before falling off, Huff lost me before the end of year two).
And just to complete this week's freaky feature, it happened right after I invoked the image of Buffy herself (see previous post). Oooooooooooh...
Well tonight, I decided to give Supernatural a try again. The show had stopped doing it for me before the end of the first season, but I'd seen an ad for this week's episode that made it look good.
Next thing you know I'm watching the episode opening credits, and whose name should flash up as a guest star? Amber Benson, formerly the late, lamented witch Tara on Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
A good and very un-Tara-like performance, I thought (and I mean that as a compliment). I wish the part had been larger, but I would, wouldn't I? I also noted with some satisfaction that the character seems to have possibilities for return. It seems likely there are some people writing to the producers and/or network to suggest that even as I type.
That's twice in less than a month I've tuned into shows I don't normally watch, only to find after the fact that actors I've admired in other series were appearing in them. Not only that, both were in series that disappointed me late in their runs (at least Buffy made it for five seasons before falling off, Huff lost me before the end of year two).
And just to complete this week's freaky feature, it happened right after I invoked the image of Buffy herself (see previous post). Oooooooooooh...
I was waiting for somebody to say it-or, ok, the Woodward/State of Denial thing
With all the praise the new book's been getting, I've been wondering: Wasn't it less than a year ago that Bob Woodward was in a mess of trouble for being, as Firedoglake put it, "an official peddler of lies told by powerful people to whitewash their criminal activities"?
Why yes, yes it was.
Didn't he abdicate his responsibility as a newspaper writer in favor of launching his books at the bestseller lists?
Why yes, yes he did.
Isn't he just another one of the many journalists who simply didn't do their jobs, along with his colleagues at other major newspapers and broadcast networks?
Why yes, yes he is.
Why are we listening to him? Just because (now) he's come around to conclusions that some of us reached before 655,000 Iraqis and 3,000 Americans died? I'll listen to Bob Woodward, and this goes for any other celebrity Bush-boosters past or present, when they go on "Larry King Live" with someone like Howard Dean and say this:
"You were right, and I was wrong."
Not this:
With a hat tip to BAGnewsnotes for both links.
Why yes, yes it was.
Didn't he abdicate his responsibility as a newspaper writer in favor of launching his books at the bestseller lists?
Why yes, yes he did.
Isn't he just another one of the many journalists who simply didn't do their jobs, along with his colleagues at other major newspapers and broadcast networks?
Why yes, yes he is.
Why are we listening to him? Just because (now) he's come around to conclusions that some of us reached before 655,000 Iraqis and 3,000 Americans died? I'll listen to Bob Woodward, and this goes for any other celebrity Bush-boosters past or present, when they go on "Larry King Live" with someone like Howard Dean and say this:
"You were right, and I was wrong."
Not this:
On CNN's "Larry King Live," on Nov. 18, 2002, Woodward explained that Bush was "very reflective about how he digested the presidency, what he had learned, what he had learned from his father, some of the convictions he had." (In "State of Denial," we learn some of what Bush ignored from his father.) "Bush is in control," Woodward continued. (In "State of Denial," we learn some of what the president didn't know and when he didn't know it.) Woodward also rebutted the notion that Vice President Cheney had amassed unusual power in his office. "There is this idea out in the land that Cheney is really secretly running things, or somebody else is running things," Woodward explained. "Cheney is the first adviser in many ways, but the president makes the decisions. He's the one who makes the calls." (In "State of Denial," we learn about Cheney's unbound power.)
A month later, on Dec. 11, 2002, as Bush began ratcheting up the campaign for an invasion of Iraq, Woodward appeared again on "Larry King Live," to lend his credibility to Bush's motives. "He is very, being very practical about this," said Woodward. In "Bush at War" Woodward did what the administration could not do for itself. The renowned journalist lent his reputation to the image of Bush as Karl Rove wished him to be portrayed -- as a master of men. Bush's political strategist and others in the administration had figured out Woodward's method and timeworn plot structure and filled it up. They calculated that he would report without context and promote the carefully arranged access as the ultimate truth. The still glistening veneer of Watergate made the sheen Woodward put on Bush that much more believable. But in the run-up to the Iraq war, Woodward's informative method had the effect of helping to cover up the disinformation campaign. Woodward's objectivity was the most convincing mode for spin.
With a hat tip to BAGnewsnotes for both links.
Ratings-wise, I've got some good news and some bad news
The good news is that Tina Fey's sitcom fell flat right out of the gate, which would be enough to make me believe in god. But "The Nine" dropped again, and "Twenty Good Years" got an even lower rating than "30 Rock".
Given how much praise it's received, "The Nine" may be given some time to grow a few more ratings points, at least I'd like to think so. But there's little or no hope for "...Years," I'd imagine, given that its appeal seems to be limited.
the real Wednesday stories may be NBC's sluggish new comedies and a big second week drop for "The Nine."
FOX was third with a 5.2/8 for baseball, just ahead of the premieres of NBC's endlessly promoted "30 Rock" (5.5/9) and "Twenty Good Years" (4.7/7).
"CSI: NY" helped CBS close the night strong with an 11.5/19. NBC's "Dateline" easily outperformed former time slot occupant "Kidnapped" and delivered higher ratings than "The Nine," which slumped to a 5.7/9 in its second week on ABC.
Given how much praise it's received, "The Nine" may be given some time to grow a few more ratings points, at least I'd like to think so. But there's little or no hope for "...Years," I'd imagine, given that its appeal seems to be limited.
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
We're living on the edge now, Jeffrey. Women will often strike us.
I felt the pilot of Twenty Good Years, the new sitcom starring John Lithgow and Jeffrey Tambor, was very funny. And when I say that, I say it on this basis: It made me laugh. In keeping with my rebel tendencies, that seems to be a minority opinion, at least among critics.
Even those who think it was good seem to be crediting it more to the series stars' sharp way with a laugh line than the writing of the line itself. I'm not so sure. True, Lithgow and Tambor are everything you could want in a late-middle-age comedy team-not that there's a long waiting list.
But the jokes made me laugh because they genuinely surprised me, there's a snap! to the writing that I appreciated. I also wouldn't be as quick as this guy to dismiss the two younger actors who play Lithgow's daughter and Tambor's son, respectively, Heather Burns and Jake Sandvig, at least not after only one episode.
It's true Burns didn't get much chance to show what stuff she has, if any, but Sandivig had one good moment. His character is a male model, and the way his face fell when Tambor told him that he used to look just like him was worth a laugh.
Just as the show is worth a look. Try it, if my luck holds, it won't be around for long.
In a related story, the second episode of The Nine maintained the smarts of the first. I can't wait to tune in to the ratings sites tomorrow and see how much of the audience it's lost.
Even those who think it was good seem to be crediting it more to the series stars' sharp way with a laugh line than the writing of the line itself. I'm not so sure. True, Lithgow and Tambor are everything you could want in a late-middle-age comedy team-not that there's a long waiting list.
But the jokes made me laugh because they genuinely surprised me, there's a snap! to the writing that I appreciated. I also wouldn't be as quick as this guy to dismiss the two younger actors who play Lithgow's daughter and Tambor's son, respectively, Heather Burns and Jake Sandvig, at least not after only one episode.
It's true Burns didn't get much chance to show what stuff she has, if any, but Sandivig had one good moment. His character is a male model, and the way his face fell when Tambor told him that he used to look just like him was worth a laugh.
Just as the show is worth a look. Try it, if my luck holds, it won't be around for long.
In a related story, the second episode of The Nine maintained the smarts of the first. I can't wait to tune in to the ratings sites tomorrow and see how much of the audience it's lost.
This is national Coming-Out Day
... [commemorating] the 1987 march on Washington for gay equal rights and [encouraging] gays and lesbians (and even politicians on the down low) to live their lives openly and honestly.
This is for anyone that did.
Sigh 2.
TV Ratings:
In retrospect, maybe the fact that a show about high school football appeals to someone like me who is so...not a high school football person, was a bad sign right there. But I'm still enjoying this series, howeversolong it may last.
The acting is particularly strong, and the directing style, lots of hand-held work accentuating close-ups, helps put it over. Another great score by Snuffy Walden, too. The writing is not flashy-great in the way of an Aaron Sorkin, but the words fall easily upon the ear. You believe the characters have depth and an existence away from that moment.
Also, the perhaps-surprising number of strong female characters is lovely.
I glanced at Gilmore Girls again during the commercial breaks for FNL, and saw my first scene with Paris in the new season. I don't know if it was because I love Liza Weil, or just because she's such a ferociously intelligent actress (of course, those two things are not at all unrelated). But it was the first and only time so far I really felt at peace with GG under the new regime.
For the rest of it, based on what I've seen so far and the "next, on Gilmore Girls..." Well, before I say this, I hope you'll take into account what I hope is my well-established at this point love for strong women in general, the Gilmore girls in specific, and Lorelei Gilmore as she was for most of her first six seasons in particular. I don't say this lightly.
But at this point, all I'd really want to say to Lorelei if I could is "Get back with Luke, you stupid whore."
Onward!
The second episode of Veronica Mars this season was a massive improvement over both the premiere last week and the second half of last season. It was so good it immidiately started me worrying that it would be just my luck if they made me like it again just in time for cancelation.
My friend Corey offers that it would be better if it ends on a high, if premature, note than if it gets good, gets renwewed, and then gets bad again. But I'm not so sure. I want to believe that Thomas and his team have regained control of the wheel, but I guess only time will tell.
The first half of this season is said to be a do-or-die time for Veronica ratingswise. If I read it right, the show doesn't seem to be dying on the vine just yet, but it could sure use some more viewers. So I'm going to do something I haven't done for a long time, I'm going to suggest you watch Veronica Mars.
I guess, even though they let me down last season, I'd still rather see them have a chance to race at the long track, even if they spin out again, than get cut before the flag.
One last item about last night's TV shows, even though it's not ratings-related. There's an article here about Boston Legal's endearing habit of letting the characters comment upon the fact that they're inside a TV show ("I've hardly seen you at all this episode").
The item doesn't mention this, but I've come to think of it as an homage, though this may not be intentional, to the Hope & Crosby road films which did the same thing. Come on, can't you see Crane & Shore in: The Road to Boston?
I think Denny's Bob Hope and Alan's Bing Crosby. Which, I guess, given that she's become the object of affection for both men, would make Candace Bergen Dorothy Lamour. Again, I can see it.
Week two of NBC clinker Friday Night Lights lived up to that description, with a mere 4.4/ 7 in the overnights (#4), 6.28 million viewers (#4) and a 2.4/ 7 among adults 18-49 (#3) at 8 p.m. Compared to its already disappointing debut one week earlier (Overnights: 5.3/ 8; Viewers: 7.17 million; A18-49: 2.7/ 8 on Oct. 3), that was a decline of 17 percent in the overnights, 890,000 viewers and 11 percent among adults 18-49.
In retrospect, maybe the fact that a show about high school football appeals to someone like me who is so...not a high school football person, was a bad sign right there. But I'm still enjoying this series, howeversolong it may last.
The acting is particularly strong, and the directing style, lots of hand-held work accentuating close-ups, helps put it over. Another great score by Snuffy Walden, too. The writing is not flashy-great in the way of an Aaron Sorkin, but the words fall easily upon the ear. You believe the characters have depth and an existence away from that moment.
Also, the perhaps-surprising number of strong female characters is lovely.
Although Gilmore Girls on the CW remains a solid player at a fifth-place 4.0/ 6 in the overnights, 4.61 million viewers and a 2.0/ 6 among adults 18-49 at 8 p.m., lead-out Veronica Mars dipped to a 2.4/ 3 in the overnights, 2.99 million viewers and a 1.3/ 3 among adults 18-49 at 9 p.m. Retention was just 60 percent in the overnights, and 65 percent in both total viewers and adults 18-49. Even so, fans of Veronica Mars take note: Veronica was up a healthy 33 percent among women 18-34 (2.4) from it’s year-ago performance. As for Gilmore Girls, a third-place finish in the 8 p.m. hour among adults 18-34 (2.3/ 7) with growth from one week earlier earns it an honorable mention.
I glanced at Gilmore Girls again during the commercial breaks for FNL, and saw my first scene with Paris in the new season. I don't know if it was because I love Liza Weil, or just because she's such a ferociously intelligent actress (of course, those two things are not at all unrelated). But it was the first and only time so far I really felt at peace with GG under the new regime.
For the rest of it, based on what I've seen so far and the "next, on Gilmore Girls..." Well, before I say this, I hope you'll take into account what I hope is my well-established at this point love for strong women in general, the Gilmore girls in specific, and Lorelei Gilmore as she was for most of her first six seasons in particular. I don't say this lightly.
But at this point, all I'd really want to say to Lorelei if I could is "Get back with Luke, you stupid whore."
Onward!
The second episode of Veronica Mars this season was a massive improvement over both the premiere last week and the second half of last season. It was so good it immidiately started me worrying that it would be just my luck if they made me like it again just in time for cancelation.
My friend Corey offers that it would be better if it ends on a high, if premature, note than if it gets good, gets renwewed, and then gets bad again. But I'm not so sure. I want to believe that Thomas and his team have regained control of the wheel, but I guess only time will tell.
The first half of this season is said to be a do-or-die time for Veronica ratingswise. If I read it right, the show doesn't seem to be dying on the vine just yet, but it could sure use some more viewers. So I'm going to do something I haven't done for a long time, I'm going to suggest you watch Veronica Mars.
I guess, even though they let me down last season, I'd still rather see them have a chance to race at the long track, even if they spin out again, than get cut before the flag.
One last item about last night's TV shows, even though it's not ratings-related. There's an article here about Boston Legal's endearing habit of letting the characters comment upon the fact that they're inside a TV show ("I've hardly seen you at all this episode").
The item doesn't mention this, but I've come to think of it as an homage, though this may not be intentional, to the Hope & Crosby road films which did the same thing. Come on, can't you see Crane & Shore in: The Road to Boston?
I think Denny's Bob Hope and Alan's Bing Crosby. Which, I guess, given that she's become the object of affection for both men, would make Candace Bergen Dorothy Lamour. Again, I can see it.
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
Oh, good
“There is another way, or other ways, to look at the race issue in America. Africa at the time of slavery was still primarily a jungle… Life there was savage … and those brought to America, and other countries, were in many ways better off.”
– Gerald Schoenewolf, a member of NARTH’s Science Advisory Committee.
The “Ex-gay” advocates of the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) have not denounced the above comments from Schoenwolf, a NYC psychotherapist and author of The Art of Hating, (”Many people talk about hate, but few know how to hate well.”)
Via Pandagon, where Pam's entry speaks for itself. But I'll add, to the members of this fine, upstanding group: You always gotta think about the acronym. How is anyone supposed to take your organization seriously when your name sounds like something Pinky would say?
Sigh
TV Ratings:
There's a musical called Merrily We Roll Along, with music and lyrics by Stephen Sondheim, which is one of the more famous underperformers-I'm being generous-in Broadway history. By all reports (I've never seen it staged) it has never fully worked succesfully, either in its original run or in a couple of revivals. Even though it contains one or two of Sondheim's best songs. "Not A Day Goes By" alone is worth a couple of shows.
I remember once reading someone speculate that one of the reasons it never worked is because the audiences didn't relate to the characters. Merrily We Roll Along, as I recall, is about a man who starts out wanting to write for Broadway and ends up "selling out" by writing commercial, pop music.
Well, this person speculated, not wanting to write for Broadway may be the worst betrayal Sondheim and his longtime directing partner, Hal Prince, could think of...but it's not a given that even a Broadway audience is going to care that much.
I wonder whether one of the reasons Studio 60 is doing so poorly (compared to, say, West Wing) is because: There simply aren't that many people to whom the running of a TV show is as interesting as, say, the running of the country.
No matter who's writing it. I mean obviously, they've got people like me-even if if this wasn't a Sorkin show, as a writer a show about a writer would interest me. But how many of us are there?
(Apparently, 8.76 million of us)
About last night's episode specifically: Last week a few of us were discussing over on Sherman's blog whether or not within the world of the series, Harriet's religious beliefs were well known. Enough so that they could be referred to on the show-within-the-show. Sherman wasn't sure, I thought they were.
I am much less sure that in this world or any other, a writer/director/producing team coming back to a late-night TV comedy show is cover story fodder for Vanity Fair. I mean, come on. How often do you see people like Lorne Michaels or even Al Franken (back before he launched his second career as a comedian) making like Jennifer Aniston?
Finally, it may interest those of you who watched to know that last night's plot was, presumably, based in part on a real incident. In his book about his time spent as a writer/performer on Saturday Night Live, (you could read my review here) Jay Mohr cops to having plagarized a sketch and being found out. If memory serves he did not, however, have the "get out of jail free" card Sorkin provided his characters at the end, a final twist I kinda wish they'd left out.
It's a weakness as well as a strength of Sorkin's writing that sometimes, he can't let people be too angry with each other for too long. The strenth of this is that all his characters are too well-rounded to be one-dimensional villains (or heroes). The weakness is that sometimes he lets conflict, or even potential conflict, dissapate too quickly.
Well, come hell or high water, I'm in with Studio 60 until they shut the lights out. I just wish there were more of us.
-Yesterday’s Losers (excluding repeats):
Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip (NBC)
Unfortunately, the news remains bleak for NBC at 10 p.m. with week four of Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip at a distant second-place 6.8/11 in the overnights, 8.76 million viewers and a 3.8/ 9 among adults 18-49. The one piece of good news for Studio 60: it beat ABC’s competing What About Brian.
-Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip (Mon. 10 p.m.): Losing steam every week.
There's a musical called Merrily We Roll Along, with music and lyrics by Stephen Sondheim, which is one of the more famous underperformers-I'm being generous-in Broadway history. By all reports (I've never seen it staged) it has never fully worked succesfully, either in its original run or in a couple of revivals. Even though it contains one or two of Sondheim's best songs. "Not A Day Goes By" alone is worth a couple of shows.
I remember once reading someone speculate that one of the reasons it never worked is because the audiences didn't relate to the characters. Merrily We Roll Along, as I recall, is about a man who starts out wanting to write for Broadway and ends up "selling out" by writing commercial, pop music.
Well, this person speculated, not wanting to write for Broadway may be the worst betrayal Sondheim and his longtime directing partner, Hal Prince, could think of...but it's not a given that even a Broadway audience is going to care that much.
I wonder whether one of the reasons Studio 60 is doing so poorly (compared to, say, West Wing) is because: There simply aren't that many people to whom the running of a TV show is as interesting as, say, the running of the country.
No matter who's writing it. I mean obviously, they've got people like me-even if if this wasn't a Sorkin show, as a writer a show about a writer would interest me. But how many of us are there?
(Apparently, 8.76 million of us)
About last night's episode specifically: Last week a few of us were discussing over on Sherman's blog whether or not within the world of the series, Harriet's religious beliefs were well known. Enough so that they could be referred to on the show-within-the-show. Sherman wasn't sure, I thought they were.
I am much less sure that in this world or any other, a writer/director/producing team coming back to a late-night TV comedy show is cover story fodder for Vanity Fair. I mean, come on. How often do you see people like Lorne Michaels or even Al Franken (back before he launched his second career as a comedian) making like Jennifer Aniston?
Finally, it may interest those of you who watched to know that last night's plot was, presumably, based in part on a real incident. In his book about his time spent as a writer/performer on Saturday Night Live, (you could read my review here) Jay Mohr cops to having plagarized a sketch and being found out. If memory serves he did not, however, have the "get out of jail free" card Sorkin provided his characters at the end, a final twist I kinda wish they'd left out.
It's a weakness as well as a strength of Sorkin's writing that sometimes, he can't let people be too angry with each other for too long. The strenth of this is that all his characters are too well-rounded to be one-dimensional villains (or heroes). The weakness is that sometimes he lets conflict, or even potential conflict, dissapate too quickly.
Well, come hell or high water, I'm in with Studio 60 until they shut the lights out. I just wish there were more of us.
Monday, October 9, 2006
President Ursus
Ursus: The only thing that counts in the end is POWER! Naked merciless FORCE!
Glenn Greenwald has some horrifying-at least in their implications-observations about the North Korean nuclear test.
Our credibility to act in the world -- both diplomatically and militarily -- has to be close to, if not at, an all-time low. We are already fighting two wars (in Iraq and Afghanistan) which, by all accounts, have significantly depleted our military resources. And we have been overtly threatening -- and flirting with a passing of the point of no return -- to fight a war against a third country (Iran). We plainly don't have enough troops to devote to our current wars in order to win them, let alone start new ones. And we have close to 40,000 American troops on the border between North and South Korea who are veritable hostages in any military confrontation.
Time and again, the President has demonstrated that he is capable of seeing a complex world only in the simplest Manichean terms. Someone is either Good or they are Evil. And if they are Evil, it means you cannot deal with them or negotiate with them or rely upon diplomacy. By definition, Evil understands nothing but force and threats of force. The only thing that works with Evil is to crush it, not to manage or compromise and negotiate with it.
What do I think?
I think Bush is the gorilla general, we're the human civilization that killed the baby chimp more than decades ago and North Korea is the cult that worships the bomb.
So as you can see I'm quite optimistic about how all this is going to turn out.
Four women in increasingly less clothing
If "increasingly less" is not a contradiction in terms...
Sarah Michelle Gellar, impersonating an old couch, standing next to Amber Tamblyn, who has some very nice-looking legs. [Via Pink Is The New Blog]
Scarlett Johansson, wearing leather, standing next to Dita von Teese, wearing a necklace and heels. [Source]
I choose to believe this is some kind of an anti-leather statement.
Happy Monday, everybody...
Sarah Michelle Gellar, impersonating an old couch, standing next to Amber Tamblyn, who has some very nice-looking legs. [Via Pink Is The New Blog]
Scarlett Johansson, wearing leather, standing next to Dita von Teese, wearing a necklace and heels. [Source]
I choose to believe this is some kind of an anti-leather statement.
Happy Monday, everybody...
Thank god for weblogs
If you missed David Rakoff’s interview on “The Daily Show," as I did, you'll want to follow this link and watch the clip. It's hilarious.
Sunday, October 8, 2006
Terry Gilliam reduced to hustling on the street
Shame, really.
No, no, but seriously though, this is him trying to whip up some support for his new movie Tideland. Which may be about to get an extremely abbreviated and only limited theatrical run before going straight to DVD.
Which really would be a shame, since he remains my favorite director. Seeing him again and again find himself on troubled productions, while the terrible Tim Burton goes from hit to hit, gives me a pain in the back of the head like a needle, a big, ice-hot needle.
I'd hoped Tideland might be my longed-for "pure" Gilliam film. One that seems, as co-writer Charles McKeon described Brazil, like taking off the top of his head and peering around inside. Early reviews suggest that may not be the case.
I'll still be watching it, whether on the big screen or small, hoping to love it. It's been too long.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
