Reflections On The Midseason - FOX

(I had intended to get this series of reflections out quickly. Unfortunately I've been feeling really really tire over the past little while. So tired in fact that I've been literally taking naps before going to bed. Anyway I may not get another instalment of this series out until the new year.)

With all five of the American broadcast networks having announced their midseason schedules I thought it was a pretty good opportunity to look at the shows that are been replaced and the shows that replacing them and at the general successes and failures of the networks.

Cancelled: Do Not Disturb, 'Til Death (on hiatus)

Planned Hiatus: Prison Break, Don't Forget The Lyrics, Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader?

Episodes Ordered:
Fringe (full 22 episode order), Prison Break (2 episodes)

Moved:
House, Bones, Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles

Returning:
24, American Idol, Hell's Kitchen, Hole In The Wall

New Shows: Lie To Me, Dollhouse,

Lie To Me sounds a lot like The Mentalist, at least based on the description in Wikipedia: "Main character Dr. Cal Lightman (played by Tim Roth) detects deception by observing body language, and uses this talent to assist law enforcement with the help of his group of researchers and psychologists." No doubt this won't be as clear cut a copy as this makes it sound. Still it sounds like a "safe" series, and its location in the time slot following the Wednesday episode of American Idol should make it fairly safe. Debuts January 21, 2009.

Dollhouse is the latest series that Joss Whedon is doing for FOX. Debuts February 13, 2009. The series focuses on a service that provides people – known as "Dolls" who can be given any personality you like and do any job that you want. Once they finish their jobs their minds are wiped and they're sent to a dormitory/lab known as "The Dollhouse." The series focuses on one "Doll" played by Eliza Dushku who is beginning to overcome the mindwipes and is developing self-awareness. Debuts February 13, 2009

Commentary: FOX has what might be described as the most schizophrenic (in popular if totally incorrect definition of the term – split personality) of all the networks. While most networks might debut new series at the midseason break, most tend to try to keep a consistent schedule from the end of September to the end of May. And when it comes to a very successful reality format, the networks try to get at least two cycles in during that period. Most importantly most networks don't break the rule that says that you don't play musical chairs with a show's time slot when the show is performing successfully. Not FOX. I swear that somewhere in the headquarters at FOX an executive once said, "Rules? We don't need no steenkeeng rules!"

I mean take a look at the shows that they're moving around the schedule. In its last original episode (December 9^th) House finished second in total viewers (13.90 million) and first in the 18-49 demographic (5.6/15). In its last original episode (November 26^th), Bones finished first in both total households and the demographic (9.43 million, 2.5/8). The only weak show of the three that are being moved around is Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles, which was fourth in its time slot in total viewers and in the demographic (5.3 million, 1.9). The two game shows that are going on a "planned hiatus" (the only term that I can think of that fits what FOX is doing), Don't Forget The Lyrics and Are You Smarter Than A Fifth Grader? are both doing relatively well in the ratings considering that they're on Friday nights after all, finishing second in total households in their most recent airings and in the demographic (the latter numbers – 1.3/4 for Are You Smarter Than A Fifth Grader? and 1.4/5 for Don't Forget The Lyrics – look weak in comparison to most nights but are strong for a Friday). Conventional wisdom, the "rules" if you will, says that you keep these shows in the line-up. In other words, don't mess with success.

And then there's 24 and American Idol. I mean let's face it, what network decides to bring back a full 24 hour season of a proven hit series in February. Well okay there's ABC and Lost but that only happened after a ratings scare in the third season, but this will be the fourth season of 24 to debut in January. The aim is to run the entire series without interruption. As for American Idol, Fox treats it differently from just about any other successful returning reality series by airing only one cycle of the show per year. And, the network has been doing that since the very beginning. By comparison CBS will have aired 18 cycles of Survivor in about the same amount of time that FOX aired eight cycles of American Idol. While there is probably a sound logistical explanation for this in terms of organizing venues for auditions and just attracting talent, there is something to be said for this approach in terms of keeping the concept relatively fresh and not wearing out its welcome. While the show no longer absolutely dominates the timeslots that it airs in the way it did when it first showed up when it effectively killed The West Wing and so scared CBS that they pushed the third season of The Amazing Race into the summer, the show still regularly wins its time slot handily. What the situation would be if they followed accepted wisdom and ran the show twice a year is certainly something to ponder.

The most recent example of FOX breaking the rules is their experiment with "remote free TV." In a world where networks seem determined to cram as many commercials into an hour as the law will allow, FOX has tried an experiment with fewer commercials per hour in two of their shows, Fringe and the upcoming Dollhouse. Costs are made up by charging a premium rate for the commercials that are broadcast, but presenting them in such a way – 60 and 90 second breaks in most cases – that people are less tempted to either fast forward through the commercials or use them as an opportunity to channel surf. I suppose the jury is still out on "remote free TV;" Fringe at least seems to be successful in terms of getting eyeballs in front of the set – 8.69 million viewers in its most recent original episode (3^rd in timeslot against The Mentalist and the finale of the latest cycle of Biggest Loser) and a 3.7/9 in the 18-49 demographic. To be sure it lost viewers out of House (leading Marc Berman to describe it as "overrated") but given the nature of the series it's still a good performance as what is essentially a quirky science fiction show with light dash of police procedural. And while I don't believe that the "remote free TV" concept is a primary reason – or even a secondary – reason for what success the show has had, it is a comforting stand down from the incessant expansion of commercial time into actual story (not to mention time for an actual theme song). It's something that people always say they want but is it something that they'll actually support now that they get it.

FOX has had a promising but less than stellar first half of the season. The loss of the two Wednesday sitcoms left the network without a live action comedy half hour. In truth it sometimes seems as if the people producing comedies for FOX are reaching for the lowest common denominator in their shows at a time when other networks are aiming a little higher in terms of concept and quality of humour (the return of According To Jim notwithstanding). A show like Do Not Disturb had the potential to be so much better if the producers had gone with a different approach to the situation and to the humour. But that, it seems, isn't the "FOX way."

This was the visible problem. The less obvious problem was the ratings of some of their other shows. Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles and Prison Break were consistently fourth in their time slots at between 5.5 million and 6 million viewers and weakness in the 18-49 demographic. And yet these two shows represent one aspect that seems to be new to FOX either since the Writers Strike or since the arrival of Kevin Reilly as head of programming at the network; an attitude of patience and allowing a show time to either find its audience or prove that it is a failure. In the case of Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles in particular, the show will be getting a full second season even if it is relocated to Friday night. Another problem that FOX doesn't talk too much about is the situation on Thursday nights. The original plan appears to have been to run the Japanese style game show Hole In The Wall in the first hour to be followed with an episode of the Gordon Ramsay series Kitchen Nightmares. However Hole In The Wall turned into a hole in the ratings and was quickly ushered out of the time slot to be replaced by a second repeat episode of Kitchen Nightmares. And yet Hole In The Wall will return to the FOX line-up once the NFL season ends.

So what are FOX's prospects for the remainder of the season? The combination of House and 24 should be very strong for FOX on Monday nights which would seem to be turning into a very competitive night (not for me though, what with bowling and all). The network may well penetrate the top three with this combination, although I'm prepared to argue that another cycle of ABC's Dancing With The Stars combined with the CBS comedies will keep the shows from making it into the top two. And even though it's been flagging I wouldn't expect American Idol to fall out of the top two on Tuesday night and I'd be so bold (and wise – when I predict something I like to know it's a sure thing before I predict it) as to suggest that American Idol will have no trouble winning the Wednesday first hour and give a good boost for Lie To Me, unfortunately probably to third place where it will knock out my beloved Life.
Bones should do well in the first hour of Thursday, at least until the new season of Survivor cuts in, but I doubt it will help Hell's Kitchen too much. As for Hole In The Wall coming in to replace the Football overrun opposite 60 Minutes and America's Funniest Home Videos...or even the CW's reruns of Jericho it has to be the most absurd thing I've heard of in a while. It's only going to last as long as it takes someone to actually see ratings for it.

That leaves us with Friday night and the much anticipated Dollhouse. For a die hard "Whedon-ista" like me this whole business of Joss taking another show to Fox is worrisome and to have that show wind up in the so-called "Friday Night death slot" makes it even worse. I'm sure that there are people out there right now getting ready to send dolls (or maybe doll heads) to the Fox offices to protest the cancellation of the show even though it hasn't aired yet. Visions of Firefly dance in our heads, and taken in the context of what happened to Firefly that is not a good thing. The show's lead-in, the less than spectacular performing Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles, doesn't exactly fill us with confidence either. And yet I'm going to present a couple of reasons why I expect the show to do "well enough" to survive. By "well enough" I mean probably a second place finish in the ratings. The first of these reasons is that Joss feels confident with the current management at FOX – Whedon has said something to the effect that "these guys" aren't the same ones that interfered with and then cancelled Firefly (I just wish I could find the exact quote). By these guys Whedon was primarily referring to Kevin Reilly. And when you remember that Reilly is the guy who carried Studio 60 On The Sunset Strip for a full season, renewed Friday Night Lights for its second season despite the ratings, and stood up for 30 Rock, Whedon's confidence starts to make sense. As for putting the show in the "Friday night death slot" I'm going to suggest a look at the competition. CBS has Flashpoint which was a big success during the summer and will probably win the time slot, but what are ABC and NBC putting on in the second hour of Friday? Well, from ABC we get Supernanny which does badly in both the ratings and the demographics. As for NBC, they'll be running thirteen episodes of Friday Night Lights. As much as I love the show I can't see this doing well, given its performance last season and the fact that the thirteen episodes have already been available on the satellite service DirectTV (and not done very well). The net result is, I suspect (or at least hope), a second place performance for Dollhouse, always assuming of course that the show is at least halfway decent. Unless the show is really really bad, I don't think that we'll see the sort of quick cancellation that has made FOX infamous

While I don't think that FOX will perform as well as CBS for the remainder of the season, the network does have a stable and successful line-up on most nights that should see the network doing very well indeed.

Happy Fringemas!

A little promotional piece from FOX and the producers of Fringe with a Yuletide-y theme. Not that I'd normally post it, but (1) I like Fringe and (2) I think it's sort of clever. Not that I'd expect anything less from them.

First Blood 2008

Well we didn't have to wait long for the first show to be pulled from the line-up. While the Fox Network is claiming that Do Not Disturb has only been pulled for the October 1^st episode, various entertainment journalists including Michael Ausiello and E! Online have stated that Do Not Disturb is done like dinner and won't be back. The action came just a few days after the show's producers sent a letter to Variety apologizing "for being the perpetrators of such bad television" even as they begged for viewers to give them a second chance because the show got better, honest. In the letter they wrote, "We here at Do Not Disturb agree that by airing the Work Sex episode — before airing the actual pilot — we created much confusion and we deserve all the criticism, the bad puns (i.e. 'an early checkout from the fall season,' 'Do Not Make in the First Place,' etc.) and, yes, even the accusation that it very well could be the final nail in the multicamera sitcom's coffin."

A mere three episodes of the series aired which had ratings which would be anemic even for The CW let alone FOX. The first episode – which was not the official Pilot for the series – drew 4.65 million viewers and a 1.9/5 rating among the 18-49 demographic. The ratings went down each week with the third – and presumably final – episode drew a mere 3.53 million viewers and a 1.4/3 rating in the 18-49 demographic. The show will be replaced at least on October 1^st, with a second episode of 'Til Death which hasn't exactly been drawing stellar ratings this season itself.

Series Premieres And Season Debuts – Week of September 15-21, 2008

It's going to be a pretty light week coming up as far as season debuts is concerned. There are no series premiers this week – a definite lull before the storm – but there are a few series getting ready to show up. That will probably give me a chance to take a run at the PTC – it's getting to be their busy season as well and they're being their usual outraged selves – and hopefully get my reviews for Privileged and hopefully 90210 done (I still haven't watched last week's episodes of either series yet). But, all in all a light week.

Tuesday

FOX has the start of the new season of House MD. House tries to patch up his relationship with Wilson in the aftermath of the death of Amber (aka Cut-Throat Bitch). Oh, yeah, and there's a patient who is dying for Foreman and House's "Cottages" (Traub, Kutner and "13") to try to interest the boss in.

NBC is debuting the latest season of Biggest Loser. This time it's the Family Edition. And we all know just how well that worked out for The Amazing Race.

Thursday

The CW is starting the eighth (and possibly last) season of Smallville. Michael Rosenbaum has regrown his hair because Lex Luthor will apparently only be doing an occasional guest appearance. Kristin Kreuk is gone too, but will be back for five episodes. That leaves us with Clark, Chloe and Lana as the major characters, with Cassidy Freeman coming in as the new head of LuthorCorp, personally selected by Lex.

The CW also has the fourth season debut of Supernatural. It will feature the return of Dean Winchester after four months in the grave or Hell... or both.

CBS originally planned to debut Survivor: Gabon on September 18^th but has decided to push it back to September 25^th and do a two-hour season premiere.

Do Not Disturb - The Writers Should Have Been

I've got good news and bad news for the people behind the new FOX comedy Do Not Disturb (yeah right, like they pay attention to me). The good news is that the first episode wasn't as bad as I thought it was going to be. The bad news is that my expectations for this show were so low that the only direction it could possibly go was up. Well that's not entirely true; my expectations for The War At Home was lower than this and that show managed to be even worse than I expected. Do Not Disturb really wasn't as bad as I expected but make no mistake, it was bad.

The show is set in a small, high end hotel in New York and focuses on the misadventures and foibles of the places employees. I managed to miss the first couple of minutes of the episode but quickly picked up the essence of the plot. An article came out detailing the sexual "adventures" of an anonymous member of the hotel staff in various parts of the hotel. This leads Rhonda, the hotel's head of human resources, to hold a sexual harassment class specifically directed at the hotel's manager Neal. Neal is a natural born horn-dog with a variety of "smooth" moves. Neal claims that he can stop his behaviour at any time and sets out to prove it. There are a couple of subplots along the way. In one Nicole, finds that she's been dropped by her modelling agency. It's important to her that she keeps working as a model for reasons that seem logical to her at least. In another subplot Larry, who is gay, worries that he's not being seen as sexually attractive since he's been in a committed relationship for some time.

Now I broke the discussion of the plots at this point because it's hear that things fall into a trap. The plots that I've outlined to this point are hardly daisy fresh, but there are ways to spin them in an innovative way. Too bad that the writers take them exactly the way that you'd expect them too. Naturally, as soon as Neal pledges not to get involved with anyone at the hotel he encounters a gorgeous woman named Tasha who is almost as eager to do with him what he wants to do with her. And naturally, at almost the instant that her sexual harassment class ends Rhonda gets involved with a member of the staff who is one of her employees, Billy the security guard for the hotel. Of course Rhonda and Billy have to sneak around to find a place to have sex, and naturally enough they get caught by Neal who has succumbed to the charms of Tasha. She has an excuse for what she was doing in the hotel's electrical room with the security man. But of course Neal attempts to bluff Rhonda into revealing that she's as bad as he is in this particular case by claiming that he had security cameras installed and those cameras have caught Rhonda's various trysts with Billy.

The other subplots unravel in the same sort of ways. While Nicole looks like the current trend in models (skinny to the point of anorexia) it is Molly who tries offers to help by hooking Nicole up with her modelling agent. Nicole doesn't believe that Molly (who is a heavy woman) is a model until she comes across a magazine with Molly's picture on the front – Molly is one of the busiest plus sized models in Indiana. Naturally Nicole gets a modelling job... as the new face of crystal meth addiction. Similarly, in the plot with Larry, his straight slacker co-worker Gus tells him that to regain his sense of being sexually attractive he should go to a bar and flirt with a guy. And naturally, the guy that Larry chooses to flirt with just happens to go to the same yoga class as Larry's partner. And while Larry reports that he and his partner fought at first, they had great a great time making up. Even the denouement to the main plot is predictable. When he reads the article Neal immediately states that he hasn't done have the things that are listed in the article. We then cut to the front of the hotel where Molly is talking to a young guy, telling him that the article could have gotten her into trouble...but they sex they'd had in the hotel was going to keep on happening!

You may have noticed that I haven't mentioned what most of the people that I've mentioned do at the hotel. That's because, except for Rhonda, Neal and Billy (whose security uniform consists of a tight fitting black T-shirt with the word "Security" on it in big white letters) I don't know what any of them do. That would have presumably been included in the actual Pilot episode of this mess, but FOX decided to air a "stronger" episode first and hold the Pilot for a later date. If this is FOX's idea of a strong episode of this series I am truly frightened by how bad the "weak" Pilot must be.

The acting in this show is about as good as what they're given to work with. I've never been a big fan of Jerry O'Connell who plays Neal. The only thing I've really liked him in is as Detective Woody Hoyt in Crossing Jordan, however I've found most of his other work going back to his Canadian series My Secret Identity to be quite annoying. Casting him as an arrogant, egotistical, womanizer doesn't exactly endear him, or really play to his strengths as an actor. I wasn't too aware of Niecy Nash before – I've never watched Reno 911 – but she does what she can with the material here. Too bad it's such pedestrian material. The other characters, with the possible exception of Jolene Purdy aren't given much more than basic "types" to work with – the airheaded skinny model (Molly Stanton), the slacker (Dave Franco), the insecure gay guy (Jesse Tyler Ferguson) – and they don't lift things above those "types." However it is the writing rather than the performances that is at fault here. The writers have set up a definite "good guy-bad guy" relationship between the attractive but superficial "upstairs" people, led by Neal, and the less attractive but smarter downstairs people who do the real work, led by Rhonda. It's just about as pat a solution as you are likely to find. They've also made the choice to go with the standard sitcom responses to the problems that the characters had. They took the path of least resistance as far as writing this thing and as a result haven't delivered anything special. But even then the writers are at least partially absolved by being forced to work within the constraints of the concept for the series. The producers are giving us yet another workplace comedy and not coming up with a way to set it apart from the mainstream beyond the theory that it's about an internal conflict between the "upstairs people" – the ones attractive enough to work with the public – and the "downstairs people" who aren't attractive but are at least as essential for the hotel to run properly. It's been done before and it's been done better. There are directions that the series could have taken that would have lifted it out of the realm of the cliche. One need only look to the British series Hotel Babylon to see what can be done can be done with the idea of a high end hotel and the staff who work in it that doesn't involve adversarial relationships or the same bog-standard stories and scenarios that were mined out years ago.

I mentioned in my review of Fringe that it is easy to write about shows that you feel are good and shows that are bad but that it was hard to talk about mediocrity. Nothing in this show rises to the level of mediocrity. Mediocrity implies that there are directions that exist that could improve a show if the producers were brave enough or innovative enough to take them. In the case of Do Not Disturb you might be able to improve the show, but that would take a new cast, writers who were willing to take different directions on standard plotlines, and a new concept might not hurt either. This isn't the worst sitcom that I've seen but the truth is that I have seen better sitcoms than this cancelled and even I will admit that those shows deserved to be cancelled. While this show doesn't suck as badly as I thought it would it also doesn't come at me with any reason why it should survive. If this show is still on at the end of the year I won't be surprised, but I won't be happy either, particularly if better comedies have been cancelled.

The Science Of The Impossible – Fringe

There are times when I think that it is easiest to write about things that you really, really like or really, really hate. It is only mediocrity that is difficult to quantify. Which may explain why I still haven't come up with a review of 90210 while dashing off a review of Hole In The Wall the night it aired. I am going to do it again for Fringe but this time it's because I really, really, really like it. To be sure there are flaws in logic and execution but despite flaws in some of the parts the thing holds together quite well. For me the proof is that despite the 95 minute running time – with limited commercial interruptions no less – the episode felt quickly paced and not like something that was padded with excess material. Indeed one of the faults was that, at times, it felt like it was rushed; as if they could have used a bit more time to develop an idea. That's unusual in most pilots that are longer than an hour and feel like they were stuffed with fluff to make them fit the time slot.

We get a pretty quick impression of what we're dealing with in the first scene aboard a German airliner flying to Boston. Encountering extreme turbulence the passengers fasten their seat belts. One of the passengers is feeling unwell. He uses an auto-injector which we later discover is supposed to contain Insulin (the device looks like an EpiPen, so my first reaction was that he was using Epinephrine for an allergic reaction). Almost immediately he gets up and runs for the front of the plane, a flight attendant running after her. When she finally catches up with him and sees his face she recoils in horror. His face is melting. We see the other people on the plane; their faces are melting. When the plane's co-pilot opens the cabin door to see what the panic is about he quickly closes it. The last image we have from the inside of the plane before it lands is of the co-pilot's face melting away, allowing his jaw bone to drop off.

FBI agents Olivia Dunham and John Scott are called to the airport to participate in the investigation. They're called separately but they're in bed together, conducting a secret love affair in a cheap motel. The FBI isn't in control of the operation though. That job goes to curt and abrasive Homeland Security agent Philip Broyles. Broyles takes charge of things in the sort of pre-emptive manner that most local law enforcement agencies on TV accuse the FBI of adopting, and when Dunham protests using her position as "interagency liaison officer" she not only earns a new nickname, "Liaison" but also a position as one of the people going on board the plane. The plane is absolute carnage; bones, clothes, blood and sticky slime. We learn (after one of the episode's commercials) that the plane has been ordered burned by the Centers for Disease Control, a cover story of course. Acting on an anonymous tip John and Olivia go to a storage facility. There they share "a moment" where they talk about the fact that John said that he loved Olivia for the first time at the motel. Naturally this means that something very bad is going to happen to John. Sure enough, after what must have been hours spent looking in storage lockers – since it has gone from daylight to night (all the better to see the explosions of course) John opens a locker filled with experimental animals and chemicals. He has also flushed his quarry, the man running the experiments. The guy runs, with John in pursuit, then, using his cell phone triggers a booby trap. The subsequent explosion not only badly injures John but also catches Olivia. Then as they say, things get weird.

When Olivia regains consciousness we learn that John isn't dead ... yet. His skin has basically turned transparent to the point where we can see through his skin to his muscle structure. The doctors have managed to slow the process of degradation but not totally arrest it. Investigating the circumstances of the deaths on the plane, Olivia finds a link to an incident at Harvard many years before. This leads her to Dr. Walter Bishop. The only problem is that Bishop is a patient at a mental hospital, and the only way to get to his is with the permission of his sole surviving relative – his estranged son, Peter. Peter Bishop is a high school dropout who is on the run from a gambling debt. He's currently in Iraq trying to make money by conning some Iraqi oil men with a plan to build a pipeline. Olivia travels to Iraq and bluffs Peter into coming back to the States with her. She uses him to gain access to Walter. It's apparent that Walter is both brilliant and totally detached from reality – as if his mind is travelling on two tracks at the same time. Seventeen years in an asylum that is little better than a snake pit will do that to you. Bishop lets Olivia know that the only other person has any idea about the compound that caused the deaths on the plane and John's condition is his old lab assistant "Belly" – Dr. Bell. Bell is the founder of Maximum Dynamic, a company that states that what they make is everything. Olivia wants to talk to Bell, but without any proof of his connection to the deaths on the plane it isn't even something to be considered. The only person who can provide the information that can cure John is the man who caused the explosion and the only person who saw him is John.

Walter suggests a method to allow Olivia to find out what John knows. It's called coordinated dreaming and required Olivia to enter a sensory deprivation tank, take LSD and have her brain connected to John's with electrodes. Peter is appalled by the idea, but Walter claims that he has used it in the past to interrogate a dead man. The technique works in allowing Olivia's mind to contact John's and she persuades him to remember the events leading to the explosion. She sees the man and is able to create a computerized drawing of him, which in turn allows him to be identified. The picture matches one of the passengers on the German airplane. They also discover that the man has a twin brother, and the twin brother works for Maximum Dynamic. It's enough to all them to try to contact Bell. However Bell is out of the country, and Olivia and her FBI partner Charlie Francis to one of Bell's leading executives, Nina Sharp. Sharp is all charm and cooperation, giving them information on the man they're looking for, Richard Steig. Nina also lets slip the information that the event they're investigating is part of a pattern. It's a pattern that Olivia and Charlie have no knowledge – according to Nina, their security clearance isn't as high as her company's. Once they have the information from Maximum Dynamic, Olivia and the FBI, with Walter and Peter in tow track him down to his home. Peter sees Steig escaping from house and lets Olivia and the FBI know the direction he's taken off in and give chase. They eventually catch him and get the information they need to cure John with, after Peter threatens him.

Steig has one other piece of information to make a deal with. The events on the airliner were in the way of a demonstration. However Steig had already set up a deal with someone else. When the plane landed Steig had received a call from one of their representatives, an FBI agent. Steig recorded the call and was willing to release the tape to Olivia in return for a plea deal. The voice on the tape was John's. Hurrying back to the hospital where John is recuperating and where Steig is recovering from Peter's interrogation techniques, Olivia finds Steig smothered with a pillow and John missing. Olivia chases him but his car crashes. He dies as Olivia tries to get the name of who John is working for. Broyles has explained the pattern of mysterious events to Olivia by now and offers her a job working with him on trying to discover the cause of the events. She is reluctant to take on the job but the events with John have forced her to change her mind. She wants to enlist Peter and Walter Bishop into her team. Peter is reluctant but eventually they agree to work with her.

The acting, at least from the people who have an opportunity to say more than a handful of lines, is first rate. Australian actress Anna Torv, who plays Olivia has a vaguely exotic quality that is difficult to describe, however she delivers a strong performance playing a woman who is determined to do anything necessary to save the man that she loves. She expresses her pain when she realizes that John was involved with Steig as much with her expression as with anything that she says. Joshua Jackson as Peter Bishop progresses from a sort of outraged disbelief that anyone could take his father's rantings and pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo seriously (as far as Peter's concerned his old man could rot away in that asylum forever and it wouldn't bother him one little bit) to someone who, if he still doesn't believe everything that he's seen, is at least committed to helping Olivia. The implication is not so much that he has romantic feelings for her but rather is impressed with her determination to save John if only as a way to escape from this scary world. Even as he seems to reconnect with his father he rejects his father's work. Blair Brown is perfect in the small role (in the pilot at least) of Nina Sharp. From the moment we see her – even before she actually says a word, just based on the way she carries herself – we sense that there is something sinister about this woman. And when she does speak, even though she says nothing that seems particularly threatening, our suspicions are aroused even further. She is too calm, too smooth, too prepared, as if she already knows what is going to happen and how she is going to react to every question posed to her in her interview with the FBI (because of course that's exactly how she treats it, as if she is being interviewed by a reporter who feels well briefed but actually has far less information than Nina does). And as we find out in the last scene, where Nina talks to an orderly about John's corpse, we are exactly right about her.

Still there are two really standout performances. The first comes from Lance Reddick as Philip Broyles. Reddick imbues Broyles with a sense of arrogance. This seems particularly directed at Olivia that turns to something like bemused tolerance as she goes off on what probably seems like a foolish tangent, to something that's not quite respect but may be acceptance. All the while, even as he reveals some of the details of "The Pattern" to Olivia, you get the sense that he's holding stuff back. It's not malevolent (although it could be) simply that there are things that she doesn't need to know and won't find out about them until she does. And it's all done with a calm even serene demeanour. The other bravura acting performance comes from Australian actor John Noble as Walter Bishop. They say that playing someone who is insane can be amongst the hardest challenges for an actor. Noble, who is probably best known in North America for playing Denethor in Lord Of The Rings: Return Of The King does what seems to my untutored eye to take a magnificent stab at it. By turns his Walter Bishop is all business and childlike. At one point he takes a skin sample from John's arm while asking for some ginger ale because it's been so long since he's had any. At another point, while waiting for some result from Olivia's attempts to contact John in the dreaming state, we see Walter watching Spongebob Squarepants, with a joy and amazement that surpasses anything that you'd see from a child. It's ana amazing performance.

The writing may, in some respects be a weak point for the show. I don't mean the actual dialogue, which conveys the emotion of Olivia's desperation to save John quite well. Rather I guess it's a vague sense of being rushed. There's no real sense of the passage of time unless the characters specifically comment on it. We move from Olivia telling Broyles about needing to get to Peter Bishop to Olivia in Baghdad confronting him. To be sure there's an indication that we're in Baghdad (one of the "cute" visual tricks of the episode which I'll mention in the next paragraph) but there's no sense of how long it took her to get there. For all we know (and in this series it's just possible) that she was teleported where she needed to go. Everything about the pacing of the episode seemed to have been rushed. In a show like Mad Men or Battlestar Galactica (two dramas that never fails to impress me with their quality) one is never without a sense of the passage of time, even though it's normally not overtly stated. I suppose that that contributed to the sense that the pacing of the episode seem fast – as if they were trying to fit everything into the 95 minute running time – and why it sometimes didn't seem like the episode took as long as it did.

I wanted to mention a couple of the visual effects. The setting for John and Olivia's shared dream was suitably other worldly. It probably should have provided us with a clue as to the turmoil within John that the place where she met him was not a "happy place" but at the time I supposed we were meant to see it as an effect of his injuries. The other effect, which I like though others seemed to have been annoyed by, was the use of captions to indicate location. Other shows use these but none do it with the "flair" (or perhaps "chutzpah" is the better term) that J.J. Abrams displays here. The captions are big and done in a three-dimensional type face. Moreover at times they seem to exist in the physical universe. In the establishing shot at the FBI office in Boston, the camera pulls through one of the "Os" in Boston to get into the office. But perhaps one of the most brazen/brilliant uses of the effect comes soon after when Olivia travels to Baghdad. We start with an establishing aerial shot of the city with the words "Baghdad Iraq" superimposed over the city. We then switch to a ground level establishing shot looking up towards helicopters flying over the city...and the "B" from Baghdad. Like I said, "flair" (or perhaps "chutzpah").

Already opinion of this series seems to be all over the place. People either love it (like me) or they loathe it. Many people comment on the similarity between this series and The X-Files and usually find it lacking. I do acknowledge a similarity to The X-Files but I also see similarities to a show from a couple of seasons back called Threshold, starring Carla Gugino, that I actually think is closer to this series than The X-Files is. I liked that show a lot – felt in fact that it was the best of the three "alien invasion series" from that season (the others were Invasion and Surface). Despite a handful of things about Fringe that I found annoying – the pacing problem that I mentioned being the biggest, and that may be have a lot to do with getting the show up and running – I really like this show as well. What I'm really interested in is how they'll follow up on this. After all, as is often the case the pilot is not reflective of the show that we'll see in subsequent weeks. In the pilot for Fringe the focus was on Olivia's relationship with John, her desperate attempts to save him, and her sense of betrayal when she finds out that he had been dealing with Steig. All of this is what draws her into the area of fringe science and introduces her to Broyles and to the Bishops. What the rest of the series has to do is to hold on to us as she and her team investigate the various threats that they'll be investigating. That could be a difficult thing to pull off. Threshold wasn't able to – it was one of the first shows cancelled that season. FOX, which is notorious for cancelling series quickly needs to take its time with this one, but given that it comes from producer J.J. Abrams, that seems likely to happen, even if the ratings for the pilot may not have been stellar (it finished second to America's Got Talent, though to be fair it held its audience solidly in each half hour). This could still turn out like Threshold, but I'm hoping that things go more like The X-Files, which started slowly and built an audience. I think this show is intriguing enough for that to happen.

Series Premieres And Season Debuts– Week of September 8-15, 2008

Here we go with week two of the new season. Or is it pre season week two? I don't really care. What I do know is that there are new shows debuting and other shows starting off for the season. All of these are on FOX and The CW of course – the other networks are still winding up their summer schedule. All in all a relatively light week .

Monday

FOX has the season debut of Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles and the aftermath of the explosion. John has to face the reality of his future alone.

Tuesday

FOX has the debut of the highly anticipated science fiction series Fringe. The episode will be 95 minutes long and have limited commercial interruptions. The arrival of a flight from Germany at Logan International with no one alive on board sets in motion a deeper mystery. I`m really looking forward to this one, particularly since people whose opinion I respect and who have actually seen the episode are raving about it.

Overlooked in all of the hype about 90210 is the CW`s other new major show, Privileged. The series stars Joanna Garcia, formerly of Reba, as a journalist who takes on the job of tutor for a pair of spoiled rich teens who I suspect could be modelled on the Hilton sisters. I've always liked Garcia, and from the sounds of things this could be a fun "dramedy" with the emphasis on the "-medy."

Wednesday

FOX has the third season debut of the Brad Garrett-Joely Fisher series 'Til Death. Mostly harmless.

FOX also has the series premiere of Do Not Disturb starring Jerry O'Connell and Niecy Nash. Based on nothing more than the previews that FOX has provided, this workplace comedy featuring people yelling at each other, is high on my list of shows that should be cancelled quickly. Then again, it is a sitcom on FOX, the network that kept The War At Home on the air for two excruciating seasons.

Friday

FOX has the season debut of Wayne Brady and Don't Forget The Lyrics. Why? I don't know (third base!).

Hole In The Wall Was A Hole In My Night.

I wasted half an hour on Sunday night watching FOX's new game show Hole In The Wall. It gave me a headache. When the show stopped so did the headache. Draw your own conclusions.

Or better yet, I'll draw one for you, and use just two words and an exclamation point to do so – It sucked!

Of course you knew it would. Marc Berman talked about this show in his Programming Insider podcast and stated that it seemed like "summer fare" with respect to Marc, he's undervaluing summer shows. I'd rather watch most of them than Hole In The Wall.

Ah, you may ask, but what makes this show so awful? After all you've probably watch the YouTube clips from Japan and other places of "Human Tetris" and laughed yourself silly. This is the same thing, so why doesn't it work? There are a lot of parts to the answer but what it really comes down to is this; a ten minute clip on YouTube in a language that you don't understand showing an event that you don't know the rules of is far different than a half hour show in a language that you understand and rules that you get. And there are plenty of annoying things in addition to that.

The show is hosted by Mark Thompson who is the local weather and lifestyles reporter at FOX's LA affiliate KTTV and has worked for the network in a number of other network reality shows as well as some acting work. The floor reporter is actress Brooke Burns who may be best known for appearing on Baywatch but was also the host of the NBC series Dog Eat Dog a few years ago. There's not much for either one of them to do. Brooke gets to talk to the contestants for a few moments who are in two three person teams. Not that the contestants on the first episode had much to say – mostly they stood around posing taunting the other team. And really she had more to do than Thompson whose principal role was to explain the number of holes (and therefore the number of people who would be participating). There's not much more to the roles of either host.

As I mentioned the game involves two teams of three. The members of each team are linked by common occupations or interests. In the first episode there was one team of body builders called "The Six Packs" and one team of overweight radio station employees called "The Beer Bellies." There are four rounds to the game before a final grand prize round for the team that earned the most points in the preliminary rounds. In the first round one person had to fit through a hole cut in a moving Styrofoam wall. If he (the first episode had two teams of men although supposedly subsequent episodes will pit men against women) made it through he got one point for his team; if he didn't he got dunked in a pool. Then a player from the other team faced a different opening. In the "Double Wall Round" the other two players on each team had to try to fit through one or two holes. Of both players did it they earned two points for their team, although it wasn't made clear in the introduction to the round what would happen if only one made it through (apparently the team wouldn't get any points). In the Triple Wall Round" all three team members had to pass through one or three holes. Finally, in the "Speed Round" all three members of each team participate, trying to pass through holes in the wall which is moving towards the team members at twice the normal speed. In this round, if some members of the team pass through a hole while the others fail, the team gets points equal to the number of players who get through. If all three players pass through the "Speed Wall" they win an extra $5,000. The team with the most points after the four rounds wins $25,000 (plus the $5,000 if they passed through the Speed Wall) and the chance to play in the grand prize round.

The grand prize round is known as the "Blind Wall." One member of the winning team is blindfolded (actually give a set of goggles to wear that don't admit light) and has to pass through a hole guided only by instructions from the other members of his team. If he manages to accomplish this, his team will add an extra $100,000 to their prize fund. Needless to say this seems close to impossible and "The Six Packs," who won the first show, failed miserably at it.

There were several things that I find annoying about this show. The sound seemed to be set up so that everything that the announcers and even the contestants said seemed to have a slight echo, like an announcer at a sporting event. The mugging, posing, and taunting by the various contestants was way over the top, particularly the supposedly "amusing" antics of the "Beer Bellies" who, given a chance to wear Spandex for the first – and hopefully last – time in their lives proceeded to give us shows of them wiggling their flab. And there was the audience who seemingly cheered and applauded this mess as though it were every play in a tight Super Bowl game. Presumably they were exhorted to do this by the producers because for the life of me I couldn't see anything that exciting in this mess.

In the end however I can't see much that's entertaining about this show. As I said, the YouTube clips were funny, almost certainly because we got them in small doses, and we didn't have a set of rules or anything that we understood about what was going on. The clips were just another example of one of those crazy Japanese game shows. Viewed with an understanding of what is going on it stops being funny and turns into something really stupid. Brooke Burns old series, Dog Eat Dog was far more engaging than this mess. About the only thing worse than a half hour of this show would be a whole hour of it. And before you laugh at that prospect, be aware that when FOX ordered this series they ordered thirteen hour long shows although it was done with the understanding that they could be split into twenty-six half-hour shows. For once I'm hoping that this mess will turn out to be a ratings disaster of the highest magnitude and that FOX will pull the trigger on it quickly. For all of our sakes.

Series Premieres And Season Debuts– Week of September 1-7, 2008

And so it begins.

While people in the business like Media Week's Marc Berman will tell you that the new TV Season doesn't officially start for another three or four weeks, the truth is that at least two of the networks are getting a jump on the game by running their shows out early. This week we'll see the return of three (or is it four) series on FOX with two hour season openers, the return of three series, and the highly anticipated series premier of 90210 on The CW. Here's what the week looks like in terms of shows starting up for the year:

Monday

FOX has the two hour season debut of Prison Break, which is back for its fourth season, with Lincoln and Michael out to avenge the death of Sarah Tancredi. Boy Is he in for a widely reported spoiler.

The CW has the one hour season premiere of Gossip Girl. With the high end students back from summer vacation there's the usual teen angst and rebellion design to aggravate the crap out of the PTC. This time around it includes Nate having an affair with a married older woman (played by Madchen Ammick who did much the same thing in Twin Peaks about 20 years ago), while Serena is mourning her relationship with Dan and Dan is wondering where his relationship with Serena stands after the break-up. And I bet you can tell that I don't watch this show.

Also on The CW is the one hour season premiere of One Tree Hill another show that I don't watch. Lucas's dream girl shows up at the airport; Nathan's comeback is halted by potentially career-changing news and Brooke and Victoria's struggle over "Clothes Not Bros" comes to a head. Whatever the hell that all means.

Tuesday

The CW has the highly anticipated debut of 90210 – not highly anticipated by me mind you but that's beside the point – in a two hour season opener. Harry Mills returns to Beverly Hills to take care of his mother, former TV star and Betty Ford Clinic graduate Tabitha Mills. He's the new principal at West Beverly Hills High, where his daughter Annie and adopted son Dixon will be navigating their new clique-heavy surroundings. The CW is hoping that their target youth demographic will tune in for the teen angst elements, and that fans of the original TV show will tune in to see what's new at West Beverly High and maybe reconnect with Kelly Taylor and Brenda Walsh (and maybe, just maybe, Donna Martin if Tori Spelling can get a deal equal to what Jennie Garth and Shannen Doherty got) from the original series. Reportedly The CW has a lot riding on this show – like its very existence. If it means anything, the Parents Television Council has already notified advertisers that they shouldn't even consider buying time on the series because the network has refused to allow advertisers to prescreen the series. According to the PTC, "CW's Gossip Girl has recently solidified the network's reputation for turning out reprehensible content targeted directly at teen and pre-teen viewers. Advertisers must bear in mind CW's track record when considering whether they trust the network enough to blindly sponsor another program targeted at teens. If Gossip Girl is any indication of what 90210 will look like, advertisers have plenty of reason to steer clear of the show. 'Gossip Girl' storylines have glamorized drug and alcohol use along with casual teen sex, including threesomes. Apparently, CW believes this type of content is appropriate to include in the most-watched show among girls ages 12-17, and advertisers shouldn't expect any restraint with 90210." Well if thumbing our noses at the PTC isn't a good enough reason to watch I don't know what is.

Wednesday

FOX has the two hour season premiere of Bones, which has Booth and Brennan in London. Brennan is lecturing at Oxford and Booth is consulting at Scotland Yard. Naturally enough they get drawn into the murder of a young heiress.

The CW has the debut of the new rotation of America's Next Top Model. Thirty young women seeking to become models are reduced down to the "Notorious Fierce Fourteen" (that's the episode title) but one of them has a secret. Isis is a trans-gendered individual.

Thursday

FOX has the two hour season opener of Kitchen Nightmares with Gordon Ramsay. Actually this episode looks at six of the twelve restaurants that Ramsay helped – or tried to help – in the first season. Actually two of the restaurants from the first season have closed since the episodes they were on aired while a third was sold.

Friday

FOX has the two hour season premiere of Are You Smarter Than A Fifth Grader? The episode features special guest contestants model Kathy Ireland and the State Superintendent of Georgia (I assume this is the State Superintendent of Schools) as well as the introduction of the new class of Fifth Graders

Poll Results - Which Of The New FOX Shows Sounds Most Promising?

I admit that posting around here has been in a bigger slump for a while than the Washington Nationals (my former beloved Montreal Expos *sniffle*) but it almost completely slipped my mind just how long ago I started this poll until I put up yesterday's post.

I'm going to put part of the blame on my new toy. Yeah I broke down and bought my first MP3 player, a 2 Gig iPod Shuffle. Yeah, it's not much and I can't watch movies or TV on it (but then again here in Canada there isn't the choice in that area that you find south of the 49^th) but it serves my purposes. All of the used space is occupied by podcasts, including three of Leo Laporte's (TWiT, Window's Weekly, and The Tech Guy), a couple of TV podcasts (TV Addict, and the Hypa-Space podcast from the Canadian science fiction network Space), and old radio shows from something that calls itself the Old Time Radio Network. I download a lot of those. (This gives me a chance to ask a question of Ivan; the other night I was listening to an episode from a show called Frontier Town. The lead actor was unmistakably Jeff Chandler, a voice I recognise from years of hearing episodes of Our Miss Brooks; however in this he was billed as "Tex Chandler" a name that doesn't appear in his IMDB entry, which means he never used it in a movie. How long did Tex stick around before Jeff took over?) One of these days I'm going to have to put some music on this gadget.

Oh and did I happen to mention that five and a half year old nephew rode Space Mountain at Disneyland five times – in two days? The only thing that kept him off the Indiana Jones Adventure ride was the height restriction. This is an example of parental guidance over some arbitrary, non-safety related, restriction based solely on age – his father knows what Brian can take and went with him on those rides. The Disney restrictions aren't based on "this is too intense for a five year-old" they're based on "we can't make the safety equipment on this ride work for someone shorter than 48 inches regardless of age." Parents know their children because for them children are individuals rather than an arbitrarily defined, identical, mass.

Okay, right, the poll results. There were nine respondents this time through. Tied for last place, with no votes, were Do Not Disturb, Secret Millionaire, and what is rapidly becoming the troubled Sit Down, Shut Up. Tied for second place with one vote each (11%) were Fringe, The Cleveland Show, and "They all sound like a big steaming pile of poo." But the big winner, with six votes (67%) is Dollhouse.

This one is clearly a triumph for my fellow Whedonistas. But let's not get complacent folks. After all, this is FOX, the network that killed Firefly, shut off Wonderfalls, sounded last call for Tru Calling and said over on Drive. In other words they haven't exactly been friendly to Joss and his crew. I am looking forward to this show but then I'm also looking forward to Fringe, a show which has a distinct X-Files feel to it. These two shows look fantastic and if they can live up to the previews they could be the big successes for FOX this year. Certainly they're about the only shows that set the FOX line-up apart from a big steaming pile of poo. Do Not Disturb looks like a poor replacement from even the lacklustre Back To You. The Cleveland Show seems innocuous enough, although it's likely to be a lightning rod for the PTC thanks to the fact that it is being produced by Seth McFarlane. As opposed to Secret Millionaire which is almost certain to be beloved by the PTC for being "touching" and "heartwarming." So far as Sit Down, Shut Up goes, I wonder if it will even be broadcast. There's a dispute between the writers, who were assured that the show would be covered by the Writer's Guild contract, and the production companies, who insist that the writers will be covered by IATSE's Cartoonist Guild contract. At this writing the dispute has yet to be settled, and the writers have yet to go to work.

New poll dealing with the CW's new shows will be up shortly. It is going to be complicated because of The CW's deal with Media Rights Capital (MRC). No previews, and very few details, are available for the four MRC shows, so I'll have to provide brief summaries for the shows with the poll.

Who Does The PTC Hate THIS Week – July 2, 2008

That the Parents Television Council is woefully out of touch with anyone except their own members and the assorted right of center (well right of right is probably more accurate) and conservative religious groups that rally around it is pretty much a given in the stuff that I write about them. But let's face it, most of the people who read this blog or most of the other blogs by critics – professional or amateur – weren't offended by Charlotte Ross's bare buttocks on NYPD Blue, enjoy Gordon Ramsay because of the swearing that is perpetually bleeped, have no objection to the movie clips shown on the latest American Film Institute special, and couldn't give a flying "frack" about Bingo America on GSN. It sometimes gets monotonous for me to take on this group every week or so pointing out the restrictive nature of what they want, nominally in the name of protecting "the children" but in reality treating all Americans like children, but my resolve is steeled every time they present an amicus brief to a court or try to get advertisers to boycott a show that they don't like. I mean sure, I'm a Canadian and so far they haven't stretched they octopus-like tentacles north of the border or spawned a Canadian imitator (although the group that pushed the Conservatives to force Bill C-10 through the Commons may be a seed for that – the link is to a search for everything that the estimable Dennis McGrath has written on the subject, which I have rather shamefully not touched) but given how much our private television networks rely on American content, that which affects the United States most assuredly has an effect on what we watch – and maybe even what we find acceptable – in Canada.

Let's start off with the PTC's Amicus Brief to the US Supreme Court in the "Inadvertent Obscenities" case. The basis of this case was a couple of incidents in which the "F-word" and the "S-word" were aired during a live awards show. The FCC ruled that the use of these words were indecent. The networks as a group appealed the decision to split panel of the Second Circuit court of appeals which found that the FCC had acted incorrectly and arbitrarily by overturning nearly fifty years of precedent in the airing of live programming. Of course that's not the way that the PTC sees it. In his press release made at the time of the filing of the Amicus brief PTC president Tim Winter said the following:

Our Amicus brief asks the Supreme Court to address the constitutionality of the FCC's ability to enforce the broadcast decency law. Rather than simply ruling on an administrative aspect of this matter, we hope the Court will fully rebuke last year's Second Circuit Court decision. That decision ran contrary to nearly 80 years of jurisprudence about the publicly-owned airwaves, not to mention running contrary to the overwhelming sense of the nation.

Two federal judges in New York City ostensibly stole the airwaves from the public and handed ownership to the TV networks. They said that broadcasters can use the 'F-word' and 'S-word' in front of children at any time of the day. We urge the Supreme Court to reverse the lower court's decision which clearly defies the public interest, congressional intent, long-established law and common sense.

Actually that's not what the court did or said and anyone with a lick of sense knows it. The court decision stated that the FCC ruling was arbitrary in that it overturned without warning fifty years of precedent which acknowledged that things sometimes are said on live television in the heat of the moment. In their Amicus Brief the PTC cites the Court's decision in the FCC vs. Pacifica case in which the radio broadcast of a recording of George Carlin's Seven Words You Can't Say On TV, during the afternoon was found to be indecent. The PTC claims:

• Broadcast television is still a uniquely pervasive influence in America, it is still uniquely accessible to children, and it still confronts the viewer in the privacy of the home.
  
• The FCC's action under review here is not a ban on broadcasting, only a channeling of certain kinds of language to a time when children are less likely to be watching and listening. The same was true in Pacifica.
  
• Here, as in Pacifica, the order at issue is from an agency with long experience in the area being regulated and it is declaratory, not punitive. The FCC has not levied any penalty against Fox arising out of the 2002 and 2003 broadcasts.
  
• And, of course, here and in Pacifica the broadcast medium is one that traditionally has been afforded less First Amendment protection than others.
  

But, though the PTC and indeed the FCC do not choose to recognise it, there are differences. The biggest of course is that in Pacifica the station aired a recording of George Carlin's routine, he didn't come into the station and do it live. The presumption must be that someone at the station had heard the recording before airing it. Even if he had done it live, it could be argued that unless the routine was entirely new, someone at the radio station would have known the content and been in a position to decide that it was unacceptable. Neither of these circumstances exists with a live awards show. This leads us to the question of "channeling of certain kinds of language to a time when children are less likely to be watching and listening." Again this is more applicable to the Pacifica case than it is to a live event like an awards show or a sporting event. The network can't say "We want this awards show to be held at 10 p.m. Pacific in the event that someone might say the 'F-word'." They can opt not to show it live, but would the event organizers accept that or indeed would the audience watch it when they could just as easily find out the winners by watching a news show or going online? Finally there is the declaration that the FCC order "is from an agency with long experience in the area being regulated." That is indeed true, but it is also true that this is scarcely the first time that a situation like this has come up. In fact, there is fifty years of precedent up to the point of the FCC ruling and in all that time inadvertent obscenities have essentially been treated as accidental events. What the FCC did in their "declaratory, not punitive" order was to arbitrarily overturn the decisions (or no-decisions) of previous commissions.

Next, let's turn to the PTC's reaction to the motion filed by lawyers for ABC to overturn the FCC fine for the episode of NYPD Blue from February 2003. You will recall that this was a scene that it apparently took the FCC five years to decide was "indecent" despite the fact that the show had been showing bare buttocks – male and female – for most of the previous decade without being fined. The PTC states in their commentary on the ABC lawyers' filing that, "After reading their arguments challenging the FCC's indecency fine against NYPD Blue, we believe ABC's attorneys should win an Emmy for 'Best Comedy Writing.' Their primetime comedy writers haven't written anything nearly as funny in years." It's a catchy line, and the bit about the comedy writers is a double edged sword is hilarious given that the ABC comedy writers (setting aside the fallacy of the network having comedy writers) are the people that gave us Cavemen, Carpoolers and According To Jim. But what the PTC thinks is "hilarious" is legitimate argument. Here's some of what the PTC says:

They argue that they are not opposed to indecency rules, yet they don't want the rules to be enforced. That's akin to saying that they're in favor of the speed limit but against any enforcement when people drive too fast.

They show a fully-naked woman from behind; the camera ogling her up and down with saucy music playing in the background. And in denying that a naked woman's buttocks has either a sexual or excretory function, they say it is 'just a muscle.' Why not just show her bicep, then?

ABC has also made the preposterous assertion that no viewers complained to the FCC about the nudity in NYPD Blue when the reality is that thousands of Americans from all over the country exercised their First Amendment rights to contact their government about the misuse of the airwaves that they own. Many of those concerned citizens used the PTC website to file those complaints with the FCC. The law is clear: people have the right through the FCC to complain about the indecent material airing in their communities regardless of how they are informed about the material. For ABC to declare otherwise is like saying that only those who fight in Iraq or Afghanistan can log a formal opinion about the war.

Of course none of that was what the ABC lawyers said according to Broadcast & Cable. On the first point they actually state that, "the current commission's indecency standard as applied was an unjustified break with precedent, arbitrary and capricious, and just plain wrong. 'Indeed, it is the Commission that has broken faith with Pacifica by disregarding the narrowness of Pacifica's holding and rejecting the restrained enforcement policy Pacifica demanded.'" The PTC's statement that the network, "in denying that a naked woman's buttocks has either a sexual or excretory function, they say it is 'just a muscle.' Why not just show her bicep, then," is far more absurd than what the ABC lawyers actually said. The lawyers, "argued that backsides do not meet the FCC's criteria for indecency because they are not 'sexual or excretory organs.' Rather, they are part of the muscular system." Which is entirely accurate of course; the buttocks themselves are neither sexual nor excretory, they are however an erogenous zone. And indeed the ABC lawyers apparently offered examples – including images of the "Coppertone Girl" – which are indicative (according to the lawyers) that the American public is not offended by the depiction of bare buttocks. The whole concept of "why not just show her bicep" is so absurd as to not being worthy even of the PTC. In the context of the scene – a woman interrupted in the process of her normal day because she isn't used to living with someone with a child – "just" showing her bicep is hardly enough. (As far as the whole "saucy music" and the camera "ogling her up and down" this is clearly the PTC's imagination running wild. The music in particular is a clear continuation of the music in the street scene that precedes the bathroom scene.)

The final part of the PTC's argument also has me shaking my head. The Broadcast & Cable article on the ABC filing doesn't mention that the ABC lawyers made this argument. It is stated in an article on the FMBQ website it is stated that the FOX and NBC filings in support of ABC claimed that, "no actual viewers complained about the episode. 'All of the complaints the FCC received in this case were from complaints drafted by the American Family Association,' which is an activist group, the brief said. Therefore, in the absence of complaints from real viewers, the FCC should not act." The implication is of course that the complaints to the FCC were made not by people who actually watched the episode and were offended by it but rather by those who were told by an organization – whether it was the PTC or the American Family Association – that they should be offended by it even if they didn't see the show except perhaps as a clip on the PTC website. The PTC claims that, "the law is clear: people have the right through the FCC to complain about the indecent material airing in their communities regardless of how they are informed about the material." The thing is though that this is far from being clear. In fact complaints have been rejected, and fines have not been levied against individual stations, in the past because it was clear to the FCC that the complainants didn't actually see the show. The PTC's comparison between the supposed right of those who weren't offended by a show that they didn't see to lodge a formal complaint to a government agency, and the ability to comment about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan despite not having been there is one of the most absurd and borderline disgusting thing in this whole statement.

Well maybe it isn't the most absurd. That would probably go to this little gem: "ABC must believe that corporate namesake, Walt Disney himself, would agree that airing the 'F-word' and showing naked women on television are not indecent. Would the same man who brought the world Mickey Mouse really think that? Surely he would agree with the unanimous, bipartisan FCC ruling that the NYPD Blue episode was indecent." Where does this come from? The PTC is not only putting thoughts into the head of a man who has been dead for 40 years but seems clearly unaware that Walt Disney wanted to include topless women – well topless female centaurs – in Fantasia and was only deterred from doing so by the Motion Picture Production Code. I don't know what Walt Disney would have thought about this scene and neither does the PTC.

We now turn to the PTC patting itself on the back. The PTC seems to be of the opinion that they and they alone are responsible for the cancellation of the FX series Dirt. Why? Well according to the article PTC Efforts Cleaned Up TV's "Dirt" the PTC managed to persuade fifty advertisers to make "the responsible decision to remove their financial support for the offensive content of Dirt via their advertising dollars." To which I say, "prove it." And they can't.

According to PTC president Tim Winter, "If advertising dollars won't support a particular television show, then the network must either edit the show in a way that appeases the advertisers, or else the network must cancel the program entirely. We heard from a number of companies who decided to stop sponsoring the show after being contacted by us. We believe that our efforts clearly had an effect on Dirt being cancelled." So by their own president's statement, it was "a number of companies" rather than fifty. And instead of asserting outright – as the title of the press release does – that the PTC's efforts were responsible for getting the show cancelled, Winter is saying that "our efforts clearly had an effect on 'Dirt' being cancelled." And even that they can't prove. What I can argue is that the show was cancelled for the reason most shows are cancelled – the audience went away. The first season of the show debuted with an audience of 3.7 million and averaged 1.9 million for the entire season. According to the Wikipedia entry for the show, the second – and as it turned out the last – season debuted with an audience of 1.7 million in "a competitive timeslot, Sundays at 10 P.M." but the audience slipped to 1.06 million by the finale of the strike shortened seven episode second season. Is it not possible that this, rather than the lobbying by the PTC, is the more likely reason for advertisers to abandon Dirt rather than the pleas/demands/threats of the PTC?

I don't think I'll look too heavily at this week's Worst of the Week because quite frankly even for the PTC it was a weak choice. The show as a one-time only airing of a Canadian show called MVP which will be airing on SoapNet. The show, which ran for eleven episodes on the CBC before being cancelled for being too expensive and not drawing a large audience even by CBC standards, was a Canadianized version of the British hit Footballers Wives. I won't go through what the PTC says about the show because it's the usual litany of supposed horrors that are supposed to be corrupting the children even though the show was seen in the third hour of primetime – yet another example of the PTC treating all of us as though we were children. But the thing that bothers me is that the PTC is that the PTC gets up in arms about this show because of drug use and sexuality but never ever mentions "daytime dramas" and the sort of things that happen in those shows (drug use, sexuality, even worse) which are far more accessible to child and teenaged viewers than this show was. But of course commenting on daytime dramas (and the syndicated court shows that occupy the time slots that years ago were given over to syndicated reruns and shows for kids) doesn't spark the sort of outrage that commenting on prime time shows does.

Let's turn instead to the show that the PTC has decided was "Misrated". This time around the show is the latest American Film Institute's latest Top Ten List, America's 10 Great Films in 10 Classic Genres. Now I missed this AFI list – a rarity for me I admit but somehow I wasn't aware that it was on. The show was rated TV-PG LV, meaning Parental Guidance, with Language and Violence descriptors. According to the PTC "...although kids also love movies, the special chose to highlight many clips featuring content unsuitable for children. With clips from movies in the categories of animation, fantasy, science fiction, sports, westerns, gangster films, mysteries, epics, courtroom dramas, and romantic comedies, this show had the potential to be as clean or as raunchy as its producers chose. Unfortunately, all too often they chose "raunchy"…and parents were not even warned of the inappropriate content, since the show was rated only TV-PG LV." The PTC points out that there are violent images from "R" rated movies being shown at 7 p.m. Central Time! Among the movies listed were Terminator 2: Judgment Day, Blade Runner, and A Clockwork Orange, with clips from Unforgiven, Wild Bunch, Raging Bull, Scarface, Pulp Fiction, The Godfather Part II, Goodfellas, The Godfather Part I, The Usual Suspects, and Blue Velvet being shown at 8 p.m. Central. According to the PTC, "Clips showed people being shot at, beaten savagely, and murdered. Graphic depictions of blood and wounds were shown. The violence in these clips earned the movies an R-rating in theaters – but apparently CBS thinks such violence is only deserving of a PG rating." And that's not all. They also showed "a clip from When Harry Met Sally shows Sally faking an orgasm in the middle of a restaurant. She yells, moans, and pounds on the table during her false sexual interlude." And in a clip from Bull Durham, "the lead character mentions his belief in 'soft-core pornography.'" Oh the horror! The PTC's conclusion of course is that "Due to the number and graphic nature of the violent clips shown, and the sexual content of other clips, this show should have been rated TV-14 LVS."

Well not so fast. Even assuming that the Motion Picture Association of America (the MPAA) didn't give some of these movies and "R" rating because they contained nude scenes – even a flash of female nudity is often enough to get an "R" rating – the fact is that the clips used in these AFI retrospectives are incredibly brief, a fact that the clip provided by the PTC shows. In particular they cite the clip from A Clockwork Orange: "In a clip from A Clockwork Orange, a gang brutally beats an older man with a cane, kicking and punching him, all while giggling with evil delight." That scene, as portrayed in the clip, takes only slightly longer to run than it takes to read the PTC description. To my mind the clips shown seem to have been brief enough, and the warning that there were Language and Violence concerns (and remember that even the PTC couldn't list scenes where the characters were engaged in the sort of thing that would either get an R rating for a movie) and recommended that Parents (real parents not the "national parents" that the PTC wants to be) should offer guidance to the children that they know better than some umbrella organization. But apparently though, the PTC believes that the clips shown, and hey, maybe even the entire list, should have been crafted to be suitable for children; because after all, "kids also love movies."

Finally let's turn to the PTC's TV Trends piece this week, titled, "Summer Brings Little Fun to Prime Time". It's a diatribe against the bad language, sex and violence that the networks are foisting on the poor innocent TV audience. It is in part a case of "round up the usual suspects." Fox subjected children to Moment of Truth (where a woman "was asked such personally invasive questions as whether she would act in a pornographic movie and whether she has shared details of her current sex life with a former boyfriend") which was followed by Hell's Kitchen which "unleashed a blizzard of f-bombs on impressionable youngsters in the audience." The writer chose to illustrate his point by printing a Ramsayan diatribe which stemmed from him burning his hand on a pot, complete with "(bleeped f***)!" inserted at the appropriate points, and added, "Clearly, Ramsay's culinary brilliance does not extend to his vocabulary; but how many children, hearing this (even in its bleeped form) will gain the impression that such vulgar language is the norm?" The writer then briefly turns his attention to CBS, with an obligatory mention of "its sex-and-drug series Swingtown" (which airs in the third hour of prime time of course) and the previously mentioned AFI special. However, the article's real wrath is directed at NBC.

According to the article, "it was NBC which failed children and families the most in past weeks. NBC should be the best network for families, with its heavy slate of original talent-show programming; but while the programs' premises are excellent, what actually airs contains material some parents would find objectionable." The definition of objectionable seems pretty low as far as I'm concerned. First there are two incidents from Nashville Star. In the first, according to the PTC, one of the judges supposedly implies an improper relationship between a contestant and one of the other judges (singer Jewel) saying, "I don't know if you mentored this kid or you made out with him for thirty minutes." In the second incident, "judge Jeffrey Steele mocked contestant Tommy's choice of song with the repeated words, 'You are such a kiss-ass. I gotta say it again, you are such a kiss-ass…He's kissing your ass.'" Turning to the show Celebrity Circus they mention "inappropriate" language ("when did it become mandatory for every program in prime time to use words like 'damn,' 'hell' and 'ass,' anyway?") but direct their real attention to one of the acts in the show in which Christopher Knight (Peter from the Brady Bunch and more recently My Fair Brady which details his marriage to Adrianne Curry) sets himself on fire. According to the PTC he is goaded by a clown to do this. They detail what the clown tells Knight ("I thought what we'd do, we take a stick of dynamite, light it, hand it to you, you stick it down your pants and blow your crotch out.") and then comments, "While fire-eating clowns are a traditional part of a circus, explosives down the pants are a new wrinkle…and one most parents probably wouldn't appreciate their children seeing." Finally they turn to "the most egregious error on the part of NBC" at least according to the PTC. That would be the debut episode of the third season of America's Got Talent. They object – but not overly strenuously to "a veritable burlesque striptease by the 'Slippery Kittens,'" but their real wrath is directed at Derek Barry, a Britney Spears impersonator, and a comment David Hasselhoff made in connection with his act: "I'm questioning my sexuality here. You're hot! But you're the wrong sex." Noting that the episode was rated TV-14 L, the writer adds this comment: "What a sad commentary it is that NBC is incapable of producing even talent shows and circus programs that are suitable for children to watch."

I am truly shocked and amazed at all this. The comments on the Fox shows – "Fox subjected children to Moment of Truth" and "unleashed a blizzard of f-bombs on impressionable youngsters in the audience" – almost creates the image of children being tied to chairs by their parents and forced to watch these evil programs. I've already dealt with the issue of the AFI show, which leaves us with the NBC shows. And here the writer of this article is really reaching to find something to object to. To them of course, any use of the word "ass" is evil even though most of the rest of us find it relatively innocuous. The comments on the Celebrity Circus and the "stick of dynamite" is absurd (and the writer clearly hasn't attended a real circus in some time if ever) but even worse is the complaint about Hasselhoff's statement about Derek Barry (who incidentally did look hot – far hotter than the real Britney Spears. While I wouldn't call the statement entirely innocuous, I can't help but take it in the spirit in which it was meant, namely as an expression of amazement and even praise for Barry's appearance in character, and I for one am unsure what this writer objects to. Or maybe I do know.

When I type I occasionally (well more than occasionally) make typos. One of those typos suddenly put the PTC into perspective for me. I left the "e" off of "prime." It suddenly became clear: the PTC wants to turn "Prime Time" into "Prim Time." And while I don't think they can do it, they do seem to have the deck stacked in their favour. They are organized and vocal, and the structure of the FCC rewards the organized and vocal. They are interested in protests and complaints and there is no structure in place for those who support a show like NYPD Blue to let them know about it. The PTC makes noise. They complain about shows and organize boycotts of those that advertise on those shows. In doing so they try to create a fear among advertisers so that they shows that are edgy and controversial don't get support. In that way television is moved away from the groundbreaking and towards the safe and formulaic, towards the sort of shows that the PTC wants; towards "Prim Time."

New Poll - Which Of The New FOX Shows Sounds Most Promising?

Same basic set up as the last poll just with significantly mor shows to choose from as well as our old favourite, the steaming pile of poo. I'll give you another two weeks for this one, and please leave comments particularly if you're going with the "poo" option. I've also decided to include the YouTube playlist for the FOX shows here. It includes the official trailer for Dollhouse. Now you'll excuse me but I still feel like something the dog wouldn't bother to drag in.

The New Season – Night By Night

To wind up our examination of the Upfronts, I thought I'd look at the final Fall Schedule on a night by night basis, giving my own thoughts on what's going to work and what's not. Bear in mind that these are only my personal opinions. (Times are Eastern)

Sunday

	ABC	CBS	FOX	NBC	The CW
7:00-8:00	America`s Funniest Home Videos	60 Minutes	The OT (NFL Post-Game)	Football Night in America	TBD
8:00-8:30	Extreme Makeover: Home Edition	Amazing Race	The Simpsons	Sunday Night Football	TBD
8:30-9:00	Extreme Makeover: Home Edition	Amazing Race	King Of The Hill	Sunday Night Football	TBD
9:00-9:30	Desperate Housewives	Cold Case	Family Guy	Sunday Night Football	TBD
9:30-10:00	Desperate Housewives	Cold Case	American Dad	Sunday Night Football	TBD
10:00-11:00	Brothers & Sisters	The Unit		Sunday Night Football	TBD

It's pretty much the status quo here before the end of the Football season. The only real changes are that CBS has moved The Unit into the Sunday 10-11 slot, and of course the as yet undisclosed plans of The CW's partner on Sundays MRC. Things will change a lot after the end of the Football season when NBC reveals its Sunday line-up. If last year's ratings for Shark are any indication I do not expect smooth sailing for The Unit. I would expect the male demographic to move towards Football. ABC should remain dominant on the night once Football ends and most of their shows will be in second place during the season. (Worth noting is that The Amazing Race tends on the whole to perform extremely well in terms of ratings when CBS has a late Football game that runs long; not sure why this is the case, but it certainly doesn't extend beyond The Amazing Race to CBS shows later in the night.)

Monday

	ABC	CBS	FOX	NBC	The CW
8:00-8:30	Dancing With The Stars	How I Met Your Mother	Terminator: The Sarah Connor...	Chuck	Gossip Girl
8:30-9:00	Dancing With The Stars	The Big Bang Theory	Terminator: The Sarah Connor...	Chuck	Gossip Girl
9:00-9:30	Dancing With The Stars	Two And A Half Men	Prison Break	Heroes	One Tree Hill
9:30-10:00	Samantha Who?	THE WORST WEEK	Prison Break	Heroes	One Tree Hill
10:00-11:00	Boston Legal	CSI Miami		MY OWN WORST ENEMY

The big changes on the night comes in the third hour, with ABC and NBC yet again trying to challenge the CBS hold on the hour – or at the very least score a viable second place. I'll give an edge in that area to ABC and Boston Legal which is a show with an existing cult following. That makes it different from October Road or What About Brian? NBC has to hope that the fans of Heroes will stick around for My Own Worst Enemy in numbers that look better to NBC; it could be a big – and quick – loser. Looking earlier in the night, the monster in the room is Dancing With The Stars which why it is more than a little surprising that ABC is planning only one series of the show in the 2008-09 season and being replaced with an untested Ashton Kutcher/Tyra Banks property. The CBS comedy block is a powerful one that is most likely to take second place against "Dancing" and beating the Kutcher property. CBS has the enviable luxury of "hammocking" a freshman comedy between the highest rated sitcom on TV (Two And A Half Men) and "the most popular show in the world" (CSI: Miami). The final big question is whether Chuck and Heroes will be competitive after the long, strike induced, hiatus. If there's some rejection of that FOX might be competitive for third place. The CW is doomed to fifth, but fifth with a very nice niche market for the night.

Tuesday

	ABC	CBS	FOX	NBC	The CW
8:00-8:30	OPPORTUNITY KNOCKS	NCIS	House	Biggest Loser	90210
8:30-9:00	OPPORTUNITY KNOCKS	NCIS	House	Biggest Loser	90210
9:00-9:30	Dancing With The Stars	THE MENTALIST	FRINGE	Biggest Loser	SURVIVING THE FILTHY RICH
9:30-10:00	Dancing With The Stars	THE MENTALIST	FRINGE	KATH & KIM	SURVIVING THE FILTHY RICH
10:00-11:00	Eli Stone	Without A Trace		Law & Order: SVU

A night of newbies. Six new shows, four of which are up against each other. I'm convinced that the big loser on the night, besides the winner Biggest Loser will be Opportunity Knocks. This show sounds awful and based on the clips shown that I've seen from YouTube it looks awful too. The other show that doesn't really fit is Kath & Kim. I really don't see the flow from Biggest Loser to Kath & Kim to Law & Order: SVU even if it is a good show. The battle for survival on the night will be between Fringe and The Mentalist. FOX seems very certain about Fringe to the point where they're reducing the number of minutes of network commercials in each episode and will be charging a premium to advertisers. The show looks good and initially at least it follows one of FOX's top shows. On the other hand there's a rather nice flow between NCIS, through The Mentalist, to Without A Trace. And speaking of Without A Trace, CBS may have finally gotten wise about how to deal with the 10-11 timeslot; an established show rather than a new series. That may give them an advantage over ABC Eli Stone.

Wednesday

	ABC	CBS	FOX	NBC	The CW
8:00-8:30	Pushing Daisies	New Adventures of Old Christine	Bones	KNIGHT RIDER	America's Next Top Model
8:30-9:00	Pushing Daisies	PROJECT GARY	Bones	KNIGHT RIDER	America's Next Top Model
9:00-9:30	Private Practice	Criminal Minds	`Til Death	Deal Or No Deal	STYLISTA
9:30-10:00	Private Practice	Criminal Minds	DO NOT DISTURB	Deal Or No Deal	STYLISTA
10:00-11:00	Dirty Sexy Money	CSI New York		Lipstick Jungle

The big experiment here comes from CBS in trying to start a second comedy night...again. New Adventures Of Old Christine might be the right anchor for this, but Project Gary sounds like a poor property for the second half of the hour. Actually it looks like the weaker of the two new CBS comedies this season. But I have to confess that I hope it – or something – will take Knight Rider out to the wood shed and beat it. I wouldn't mind if they were bringing some new perspective to the concept but it's quite clear that "only the names have changed" and that just doesn't cut it with me. As for the other new shows on the night, the only thing that looks worse than Do Not Disturb, a concept that had the potential to be so much more, is the Apprentice clone Stylista. Hopefully both will die a swift and well deserved death, but that's just my opinion.

Thursday

	ABC	CBS	FOX	NBC	The CW
8:00-8:30	Ugly Betty	Survivor	Moment Of Truth	My Name Is Earl	Smallville
8:30-9:00	Ugly Betty	Survivor	Moment Of Truth	30 Rock	Smallville
9:00-9:30	Grey`s Anatomy	CSI	Kitchen Nightmares	The Office	Supernatural
9:30-10:00	Grey`s Anatomy	CSI	Kitchen Nightmares	SNL THURSDAY NIGHT LIVE	Supernatural
10:00-11:00	LIFE ON MARS	ELEVENTH HOUR		ER

Thursday is the most competitive night of the week, with all five networks throwing up what they consider to be their big guns. At the same time it is also one of the most stable nights this year with the only major changes in the first two hours – besides the SNL Thursday Night Live show (which is actually a series of three pre-election comedy specials; the normal placeholder for this time will be Office repeats until the debut of the spinoff of The Office) is FOX's decision to move Moment Of Truth and Kitchen Nightmares to the night to replace Are You Smarter Than A Fifth Grader? and Don't Forget The Lyrics. Apparently a FOX executive has stated "Look, it's eroding. It's an older show. It's eventually going to give up and were trying to accelerate that." He may in fact be right in so far as Survivor isn't the ratings juggernaut that it once was. However it does still win the time slot rather handily, and I for one can't believe that the excremental (which means exactly what you think it means) Moment Of Truth will take ratings points from Survivor. In fact – and I'm going to be bold in this prediction – I don't think the show will perform as well as Are You Smarter Than A Fifth Grader. If any of these two show is going to drop in the ratings it will be Moment Of Truth. The big battle on Thursday night will be in the 10-11 slot. ER won't lose audience) although that is a show that really has eroded over the years) but it will be ending its run at the end of February. At that point it will be replaced by a new season of Celebrity Apprentice, and with due respect to Donald Trump (and in my opinion not much respect is due) his show is no ER. As a result the real battle in the time slot will begin when ER ends. I have no real idea who will win, but if I were to pick right now, based on the clips that I've seen and the way that the shows "flow" into each other, I'd have to give an edge to CBS's Eleventh Hour which matches with CSI in a way that Life On Mars really doesn't match with Grey's Anatomy. But I'm also going to make this prediction – barring an absolute ratings melt down, both shows are going to be around to take on Celebrity Apprentice.

Friday

	ABC	CBS	FOX	NBC	The CW
8:00-8:30	Wife Swap	Ghost Whisperer	Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader?	CRUSOE	Everybody Hates Chris
8:30-9:00	Wife Swap	Ghost Whisperer	Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader?	CRUSOE	The Game
9:00-10:00	Supernanny	THE EX-LIST	Don't Forget The Lyrics	Deal Or No Deal	America's Next Top Model (Encore)
10:00-11:00	20/20	Numb3rs		Life

Friday night is now TV's new wasteland – Saturday having been pretty much abandoned by the networks – and it shows in the programs their offering. BAC has reality shows and a news magazine while FOX has two game shows. I actually like The CW's decision to move its comedies to Friday night – it recalls The WB's Friday night comedy line-up which was one of its stronger programming periods (even if the critics and supposedly sophisticated people hated the lynchpin of that line-up Reba – that show was still the highest rated CW comedy when it was cancelled). What I'm less than pleased with is that the network has given its second hour over to a repeat of America's Next Top Model. If you're going to build a night of comedy, build a night of comedy. The big news on the night has to be CBS's decision to replace Midnight with The Ex-List, a decision that apparently had more to do with business decisions on the part of CBS and a rivalry with Warner Brothers than it did with the actual show. Even on a night as weak as this I can't see this decision turning out well. The Ex-List clip that was released looks as bad as the concept sounds. As for the other new show on the night, Crusoe, no one knows much about it except that it's an adaptation of Robinson Crusoe. Whether it's a modernized version or done in period, I can't imagine anything like good ratings coming from this.

So there is the Fall 2008 schedule. There will be changes in the winter, particularly from FOX and NBC, and inevitably there will be changes happening a lot sooner than January. For the most part – as in just about every case – the new series fall into the "nothing at all" category – as in "if you can't say anything nice, say nothing at all." Can it really be two years ago that we had shows debuting like Studio 60, 30 Rock, Kidnapped, Vanished, Friday Night Lights, Brothers & Sisters, and Men In Trees. Even the failures from that list of shows were better, in my opinion, than most of what the networks will offering us as new shows in this coming season. This is not going to be one of TV's great seasons.