New Poll – Who Should Win The Emmy For Outstanding Actor In A Drama?

The usual things apply. Vote for the person that you think should win rather than who you believe the Academy will choose (unless of course they are one and the same person). Poll runs through August 24^th. Please feel free to comment on your choices here.

Poll Results – Outstanding Actress In A Comedy

One of the interesting things to watch in Poker is the betting patterns. Who bets what and when provides a player or an observer with information on what the bettor has, or at least what he wants us to think that he has. I'm not entirely sure what voting patterns in web polls like this one tell us But I suspect that there's a story there too. In this poll there was an actual voting pattern. Suffice it to say that this was a close race until a surge of late voting provided us with our winner.

There were eighteen votes cast. In a three way tie for third place are Felicity Huffman of Desperate Housewives, America Ferrera from Ugly Betty, and Mary-Louise Parker from Weeds, each with two votes (11%). In second place with four votes is Julia Louis-Dreyfus of The New Adventures of Old Christine with four votes (22%). But the winner with eight votes (44%) is Tina Fey from 30 Rock.

I think that this is very likely the way the voting will go down at the actual Emmys. I'm pretty sure that Weeds is suffering from the common bias in my polls against cable shows, but not having seen many episodes of the show, my impression is that it is a dark comedy and I'm not sure that the Television Academy really likes those. As for Felicity Huffman, I don't necessarily find her to be particularly funny on the show. I don't enjoy her as much as I enjoy Terri Hatcher for example. I might have expected a better performance in the poll from America Ferrera who has the title role on Ugly Betty even though I' m watching Survivor instead. The show was after all one of the more successful new shows of the past season. If there's an actress who could break out from this third place pack it is her.

The two actress who are in the lead in this poll are in shows which adhere to the standard sitcom format – a half-hour, work or home based series – but they are different from the run of the mill sitcom. "Old Christine" is based on a divorced single mother in her late 30s or early 40s trying to reconstruct her life. I've never seen the show of course (Monday nights and a sitcom) but these sorts of roles are rare in a sitcom landscape filled with shows like 'Til Death and According To Jim. As for Tina Fey, she's obviously learned the importance of being a straight woman in a situation comedy. She is the central figure on the show. Everyone plays off of her – Alec Baldwin as Jack, Jane Krakowski as Jenna, and Tracy Morgan as Tracy – so that things happen to her, and it is frequently the case that laughter comes from things that happen to people rather than from people doing or saying funny things. Buster Keaton understood that, as did Jack Benny. It doesn't hurt for consideration at the Emmys that 30 Rock is a critical darling (even if its ratings are undeservedly low) or that Fey created the show and is one of the chief writers and therefore shapes her own character's desitiny.

New poll up shortly.

TV On DVD – August 14, 2007

After a week's hiatus I'm determined to get this one out as quickly as possible while still maintaining some semblance of standards. Well at least I got the standards part mostly right. As always, the original list comes from the TV Shows On DVD website. There's a couple of bits of editorializing on value for money – just a warning.

My Pick of the Week
The Fugitive: Vol. 1, Season 1
One of the truly legendary television series of the 1960s. The show is really an anthology series but with a continuing storyline based on Victor Hugo's Les Miserable. David Jansen, whose face always possessed a world weary quality is well cast as Richard Kimble while Barry Morse (a Brit who is a naturalised Canadian – yes, he's still alive and kicking) took the thankless role of Lt. Philip Gerard, Javert to Jansen's Jean Valjean. By having the lead character being a man on the run the audience is given an entry point into various stories that make the series an anthology. While Kimble's search for the "one armed man" and Gerard's pursuit of Kimble are always there, they are only rarely the central aspect of the story.

So why is this my prick of the week? Well, a big chunk of it is nostalgia. It was something that I watched as a kid (and was angry when the local station lost the rights to the series before the finale which I only saw around the time that the movie came out). The other part though is that the series was well done. The anthology aspect of it was a logical outgrowth of Kimble chasing and being chased. As much as I enjoyed Andrew Davis's movie version it lacked the time to develop the characters that the TV series had and – obviously – the opportunities to tell stories about the people that Kimble had an impact on during his time as a fugitive. (The less said about the 2000 series with Tim Daly and Mikelti Williamson the better. The producers of that fiasco just didn't get it.) Even without special features, this is a set to get.

All Creatures Great and Small: The Complete Series 7 Collection
All Creatures Great and Small: The Complete Collection
Series 7 was the last for this great British series, and I'm sad to say that it isn't one of my favourites. By this point the series has long since abandoned James Herriot's original stories and in the seventh season they seem to have tried to recapture the magic of the series by bringing Peter Davison back to the series as Tristan Farnon. By this time Davison had of course played The Doctor on Doctor Who as well as starring in Campion and A Very Peculiar Practice. So twelve years after the series debuted (and after about fourteen years and a World War had passed within the continuity of the series) Davison was basically back playing a Tristan who was little changed by his experiences (in the books, Tristan never returned to the practice and instead worked for the Ministry of Agriculture after being an officer during the war). Of course I never got over the replacement of Carol Drinkwater as Helen by Lynda Bellingham who always looked too old for the part though she and Drinkwater are the same age. Still even poor (in my opinion) episodes are better than a lot of shows that are on TV today.

Avatar Last Airbender V4 Bk2
I willingly admit to my ignorance. I have absolutely no idea of what this animated series is about. I do know that it is supposed to be quite popular with both critics and viewers, but while I'm sure it airs on some cable station in Canada (probably YTV) I've never seen it and given that the storyline appears to be quite complex I have no doubt that to fully appreciate it I'd have to start at the beginning.

Baby Looney Tunes, Vol. 4
Some ideas seem like a good thing at the time but turn out to be bad later. I can't believe that this isn't one of them. The concept of the classic Looney Tunes/Merrie Melodies characters as infants is less appalling than the idea behind the series Loonatics, but really not be that much. Save your money for the next edition of the Looney Tunes Golden Collection and see the characters as they were meant to be seen.

Doctor Who: Robot
Doctor Who: Survival
Two serials from the classical era of Doctor Who. Robot is the episode which introduced Tom Baker and I hate to say it but it isn't a particularly great episode, being rather derivative of King Kong in places (mostly the final episode where a giant robot menaces a village while carrying Sarah Jane in its hand). Still, any episode with Sarah Jane, the Brigadier, Sgt. Benton and Harry Sullivan can't be all bad. I confess to actually enjoying Survival almost as much. It was the last episode of the series' first run, which means Sylvester McCoy as The Doctor and Ace as a companion who was nowhere near as intelligent as Sarah Jane but would sooner kick an enemy in the bollocks than scream. I liked Ace and have always wondered about her final fate. The episode also marks the final appearance of Ace as a companion who was nowhere near as intelligent as Sarah Jane but would sooner kick an enemy in the bollocks than scream. I liked Ace and have always wondered about her final fate. The episode also marks the final appearance of Anthony Ainley as The Master, and quite honestly it looked like the character might have made his final appearances as well (but of course you can't keep a good villain down – death is at best a minor inconvenience). I also find the Cheetah people a far more interesting menace than the robot and the collection of vaguely mad boffins who created it. That said, like every Whovian worth his grotzits, I believe that Sarah Jane is The Doctor's greatest companion.

Dynasty: Season 2
The second season of Dynasty was when the series really came into its own with the introduction of Alexis Carrington, played with a delicious wickedness by Joan Collins who plays wickedness with the energetic delight of someone who may have just a touch (or more) of it in herself. Before the arrival of Alexis, Dynasty can probably be summed up as a fairly poor Dallas knock off. With Alexis it developed an incredible over-the-top quality that no other show matched. You'd believe the most outrageous things with Alexis. Annual cat fights with your ex-husband's new trophy wife? I believe it. Screwing your boyfriend to a heart attack and then literally marrying him on his deathbed? It was absolutely believable on this show, if it was Joan Collins doing it. She made the word Bitch practically an honour that you had to be worthy of.

Elvis: The Mini Series
This is the CBS miniseries from a couple of years ago that starred Jonathon Rhys Meyers as "The King." I`ve never seen it; I confess to never having been a huge Elvis fan – or even a small Elvis fan. Apparently it was quite good, with Meyer's portrayal of young Elvis being good enough to win an Emmy nomination for Outstanding Actor in a Miniseries (yet another example of a British – well Irish – actor taking the bread out of the mouth of a deserving Canadian actor who could have played the role ;-) ). However, as I say, I am in no position to judge.

Home Run Derby, Vol. 2
Hmm. This is an interesting sounding show that I've never heard of before. Basically Major League ball players in 1959 came to the Los Angeles Wrigley Field (former home of the Pacific Coast League's Los Angeles Angels an occasional home of the Dodgers before they moved into Dodger Stadium) and participated in a head-to-head home run hitting contest. There'd be nine "innings" and each player would get three outs per inning – an out being defined as any hit that was not a home run or any pitch not hit that was in the strike zone. The winner of each game would win the princely sum of $2,000 with a bonus of $500 for any player who hit three straight homers, an extra $500 for the fourth homer and $1,000 for every consecutive homer after that. The winner would also return to "defend" his title. In the days before free agency when player salaries were a lot lower than they are today, that was a pretty good supplement to a player's income. The series was apparently popular but was cancelled in 1960 when host Mark Scott died suddenly of a heart attack at age 45. This set focuses on the show's biggest money winner, Henry Aaron who won six straight "games" and $13,000. Certainly an interesting relic of the period.

The Kids in the Hall: Pilot Episode
The pilot for the legendary Canadian comedy series never before released on DVD; who wouldn't want that? Well apparently, Canadians. It is not available from Amazon.ca. Well at least they don't make it easy; searching the site with either a partial or complete title reveals nothing but entering the ASIN # obtained from the Amazon.com website produces a page for The Kids in the Hall: The Pilot Episode! Certainly it's a bit of absurdity worthy of the Kids in the Hall (or at least Dave Foley in a dress).

Loonatics Unleashed: The Complete Second Season
The horror, the HORROR. My recommendation on Baby Looney Tunes ("Save your money for the next edition of the Looney Tunes Golden Collection and see the characters as they were meant to be seen.") applies here as well except that it should be done as a form of penance for even thinking of buying this abortion. What were they thinking and/or smoking when they came up with this idea?

Masters of Horror: Valerie on the Stairs
Masters of Horror: We All Scream for Ice Cream
I'm not entirely familiar with this Showtime series, but the quality of the writers (Clive Barker for Valerie On The Stairs, John Farris for We All Scream For Ice Cream), directors (named here) and actors (William Forsythe, and Christopher Lloyd among others) in these two discs promises a great deal. These are Season 2 episodes; coming in a couple of weeks will be a boxed set of the Season 1 discs which had been released in the same manner. Based on price and the fact that the Season 1 set includes a previously unreleased disc of extras, you would probably be better off to wait for the eventual release of a complete Season 2 set unless you specifically want only specific episodes of the series.

Mcleod's Daughters:Season 3
Apparently this Australian series airs in Canada on the non-denominational religious channel Vision TV, and on the digital specialty channel One - the Mind, Body & Spirit Channel, all of which is by way of explaining why I have never heard of this series until now (Australian, religious channel, "Mind, Body & Spirit Channel" – none of them my cup of tea, except maybe Australian. Apparently the series is one of the most popular shows in Australia and is consistently nominated for and wins "Logies" – the Australian equivalent of the Emmy, named after John Logie Baird (the inventor of the first practical television system, "mechanical television"). Who knew?

Murder City
Why is it that so many cop shows and mysteries feature "two mismatched detectives" who find themselves working together to solve crimes? I don't know, but they do. Murder City features Amanda Donahoe as Detective Inspector Susam Alembic ("perhaps the most talented DI in her department") who is partnered with Detective Sergeant Luke Stone, played by Kris Marshall. Stone is seen by many of his colleagues as "an amateur detective" and by some as incompetent for his mistakes. I haven't seen this show, which airs on BBC America but not on BBC Canada (at least not yet) but I'm interested in anything with the alluring Ms. Donahoe, who I loved in LA Law which was before I saw her in Lair Of The White Worm where she was literally bewitching.

Overhaulin': Season 3 Vol. 2
Cars, many of them classics, overhauled for unsuspecting owners. It undoubtedly helps if you're a car guy, which for the most part I'm not.

A Pup Named Scooby Doo, Vol. 7
I'm not sure that I need to say it, but I've never been a fan of anything to do with the Scooby-Doo franchise except of course with the original link to Buffy the Vampire Slayer which is a cultural reference (which morphed when Sarah Michelle Gellar took the role of Daphne in the live action movie). Even so the notion of the adventures of Scooby-Doo as a puppy somehow seems wrong to me. On the other hand it does seem to give some background to the characters but somehow it doesn't seem right to me, Considering that only 29 episodes of this show were ever made, seven volumes seems like a lot. What it is is an effective way to get money out DVD buyers who would probably be paying less if a season set or complete series set were offered. It is, I'm sad to say, a rather common and annoying practice for the producers of DVDs aimed at kids and paid for by their parents.

New Poll – Who Should Win The Emmy For Outstanding Actress In A Comedy

Usual drill – vote for who you think should win, not who you feel will win because the Emmy voters can quite frankly be f---ing donkeys sometimes (can you tell that I watched the finale of Hell's Kitchen last night).

I would really like to see comments on why you are voting for what you choose to vote for by the way so that I can integrate more opinions into the results posts.

Poll closes August 19th.

Poll Results - Who Should Win The Emmy For Outstanding Actor In A Comedy?

Wow. No doubts in this one. Not only did this poll get the highest turn-out for any of the "actor" categories, and the second highest vote total for this year's Emmy polls, it was the most decisive result for any actor or actress in terms of margin.

Fourteen votes were cast. In a tie for fourth place were Charlie Sheen of Two And A Half Men and Ricky Gervais from Extras with no votes. In third place is Monk's Tony Shaloub with two votes (14%). In second place with four votes (29%) is Steve Carrell from The Office. But the runaway winner, with eight votes (58%) is 30 Rock's Alec Baldwin.

I think you've nailed this one. Charlie Sheen's nomination seems primarily to be an acknowledgement that Two And A Half Men is one of the most popular comedies on television, yet critics both years that he has been nominated have been mystified by the fact. I am vaguely surprised that Ricky Gervais didn't get a little more recognition from you for his work on Extras, although of course it is on HBO and votes on my Emmy polls tend to to be hard to come by for cable shows. Likewise I am vaguely surprised by the votes that Tony Shaloub has received for his role on Monk, primarily because it has been my feeling that the show is, to put it bluntly, a bit past its glory days. Or at least that's the impression I've been getting based on what others have written – I don't get a chance to see the show myself.

Which brings us down to Carrell and Baldwin, which I'm convinced is how it will shake out in the actual voting as well. While Carrell plays the hilariously oblivious office manager Michael Scott, a man promoted well beyond the level of his incompetence, beautifully, it is Baldwin who stands out from the pack this year. In what in most shows would be a supporting role Baldwin explodes to prominence, dominating every scene that he's in and doing it effortlessly. It helps of course that Baldwin is a frequently brilliant actor who is also a deft hand at comedy and that the show's writer and executive producer Tina Fey recognise this. As Toby said in the comments for this poll, "With Baldwin, the writers and directors have cut the restraining wires which could have held him back. He could be considered an overwhelming force on the show, but it's delivered with such glee that you can almost sense Tina Fey mentally standing back and enjoying the way he dominates the scenes they share together." Baldwin's presence turns what otherwise could be a fairly standard comedy (in a time when a most "standard comedies" are pretty dismal to be honest) into a shining star.

And yes, I think that it is absolutely certain that the Emmy voters will reward Alec Baldwin for this performance. If they don't give it to either Carrell or Baldwin the Emmy voters should have their collective heads examined.

New poll up in a few minutes.

Short Takes – August 13, 2007

It is sometimes irritating how time can slip away. I meant to do one of these last week, along with a TV on DVD posting, but with one thing and another (and another after that) by the time either one would have been done it would have been time to do this one – and some of the stuff that I had promised myself I would do this past week wouldn't have been done. And that doesn't even count some ongoing projects that have yet to be resolved. Plus I really wanted to get out to the new casino that opened about 24 miles out of town (a long and gory story exists about why it is 24 miles outside of Saskatoon but the short version is that the people of my hometown are moralistic morons – if you'd like to hear the full story ask me in comments and I'll do an off topic post) – I wanted to go on opening day (Friday) but decided against it and now I don't know when I'll get the chance.

Another thing that fell by the wayside was taking notes for this post. I have a system but it sort of fell apart this week in part because I didn't really check all of my usual sources. The end result is that I'm sort or winging it this week and it might not be terribly long or complete. Well except for the PTC section this week, which is huge.

Big Brother bigotry: The really big story concerning this season of Big Brother in the U.S. has nothing to do with banner planes or the twist of "America's player" or "Evel" Dick (that's how he wants "evil" spelled) cursing at anyone who gets in his way and dumping iced tea on Jen's head. No it has to do with statements that have never been broadcast either on the three weekly episodes of Big Brother that air on CBS or on the nightly three hour live show – Big Brother After Dark – that airs on ShowtimeToo. These were statements made by houseguest Amber which happened to be picked up on the Internet live feeds. Speaking to fellow houseguest (and truly odd Christian – at least in my experience) Jameka, Amber said "The majority of people I know from New York are Jewish, and the majority of Jewish people I know, my gosh, so many are so selfish. So weird. Even my sister always tells me, she's like my sister, and my mom will meet someone and I'll be like, 'I don't like that person. That person doesn't seem like a very good person to me,' and my mom and sister are like, 'You know why?' Why? 'They're Jewish.' How do you know? 'Amber you can tell by their last name, you can tell by their nose.' I'm like, 'Really?'" One of the other houseguests with whom Amber has had an on and off feud is Eric Stein who, as it happens, is from the New York City area (Westchester County) and is Jewish.

Needless to say the statements made their way from the show's live feed to the various video sharing sites including YouTube. Also needless to say there has been considerable reaction, some calling for Amber's removal from the house. It was a story on both FOX News and CNN. Abraham Foxman, National Director of the Anti-Defamation League, said "It's part of the unintended consequences of the communications revolution. Anybody can say what they do - but reality shows are now giving license to these expressions of anti-Semitism. Now, all of a sudden, the world is privy to their bigotry and it's on national television... then enhanced on YouTube. What they've done is distributed anti-Semitism -- which started as a private conversation -- and by putting it on a reality TV show broadcast it to the world at large. I want CBS to understand they are facilitating anti-Semitism. They should act responsibly to the community; they are legitimizing bigoted conversation." In the same posting on TMZ, CBS responded by stating that "Big Brother is a reality show about watching a group of people who have no privacy 24/7 - and seeing every moment of their lives. At times, the Houseguests reveal prejudices and other beliefs that we do not condone. We certainly find the statements made by Amber Siyavus on the live Internet feed to be offensive and they will not be part of any future broadcast on the CBS Television Network."

I confess that this whole controversy bothers me, and it bothers me on both sides. It is pretty apparent that Amber is a very stupid and very strange woman. She's a former drug addict who lied a couple of times to her former boyfriend about being pregnant. That in fact was part of the reason for her extremely angry breach with Eric. Her bigotry isn't surprising. In many ways it is a throwback to the way that North American society was for many years, the sort of prejudice that was common into the 1950s, well after Hitler's rise and fall took anti-Semitism to a frightening extreme. That said, I feel that the statements that have been made about Amber's statements are significant overreaction. They are also expected of course. The live feeds are just that – live – and therefore uncensored. CBS has not, and according to their statement will not "broadcast it to the world at large." The live feeds are Internet rather than television and are a pay to view service. That's significantly different from making "the world ... privy to their bigotry and it's on national television." What is CBS supposed to do to not distribute anti-Semitism? Were they supposed to pull the plug on the Feed and if so at what point were they supposed to do it? Were they supposed to force YouTube to pull the clips off of their site? It is a fact that Amber was aware that she is on camera all the time but it is also a fact that people who are under constant surveillance – either in documentaries or in business situations – who are aware of the fact come to either forget or ignore the fact that they are under surveillance and revert to their normal pattern of life. I think that Amber either forgot that she was constantly on camera or was just living her life and having a conversation with someone she regards as her closest friend in the house. That her speech was bigoted is obvious but so is the fact that if Amber's statement hadn't been the subject of such righteous indignation far fewer people would have seen it or been aware of it since few people – including our Jackie – watch every minute of the live feeds (though she tries).

Coming to Criminal Minds – Harvey Keitel Joe Montegna: When Mandy Patinkin pulled – well a Mandy Patinkin – and suddenly left the successful Criminal Minds in much the same way that he left Chicago Hope (then for "personal reasons" now for "creative differences") a number of names were bandied about as possible replacements of various degrees of seriousness. Geena Davis was under consideration as were Michael Keaton and Bob Hoskins. Eventually it seemed likely that Patinkin would be replaced by Harvey Keitel, star of such movies as Reservoir Dogs and The Bad Lieutenant. TVSquad actually announced that he was in serious negotiations for the part. And almost immediately they had to recant when a TV Guide report stated that the negotiations had fallen through. Eventually it was announced that Joe Montegna, who previously starred in Joan of Arcadia, and First Monday, would be replacing Patinkin.

Who does the PTC hate this week?: And the answer is so many things that it's hard to keep count.

The PTC announced their list of "Best" and "Worst" advertisers. The definitions are obviously based on the degree to which the company advertises on programming that the PTC regards as suitable, although they say that they base it on "how frequently they sponsor wholesome, family-oriented television shows or those containing sexually graphic, violent or profane material on broadcast television." The 10 "Best" are (in order): Proctor & Gamble, Walt Disney Co., Ford, Unilever, Viacom, McDonalds, Johnson & Johnson, Schering-Plough [Products include: Afrin, Claritin, Nasonex, Dr. Scholls, Lotrimin], Coca-Cola, and General Mills. The 10 "Worst" are: Toyota, GM, Limited Brands, Payless Shoe Source, Vonage, Volkswagen, Dunkin Brands, Reckitt Benckiser [Products include: Clearasil, Lysol, Spray and Wash, Air Wick, Woolite, Jet Dry, Glass Plus, Electrasol, Easy Off], GEICO, and Bayer.

There is an obvious fault in this list, and that is that it seems to assume that the "good" advertisers are making the decisions that they have as to where to put their advertising dollars based on moral grounds, and presumably the "bad" advertisers are immoral scum. Maybe some of that is in fact the case – at least as far as the "good" advertisers – but I suspect a lot of both groups' choices are based on where they can get the most bang for their bucks; in other words which programming will target their demographics that buys their products. Obviously Disney is going to market most of their movies and their theme parks to families with pre-teen children and will therefore advertise primarily on programs that reach that demographic. In much the same way, most automobile companies will target their advertising to people who buy cars. General Motors and General Mills are not aiming at the same demographics and it makes sense that they will advertise to different audiences and on different programs. If General Mills suddenly found that the population who bought their cereals was watching Rescue Me, they would be advertising on Rescue Me.

Next up, the PTC is upset with MyNetwork TV, and its parent company News Corp. You may remember MyNetwork TV; they were the motley collection of UPN and WB stations, many of them owned by News Corp (which also owns FOX and FX) that were formed into a network after being excluded after The CW was created. Their line-up is a thoroughly pathetic mix of reality shows, movies and a lesser extreme fighting league with Wednesdays in the summer being devoted to "various programs." On August 1, MyNetwork TV aired the first two episodes of the new F/X series Damages, which stars Glenn Close in what the PTC descrinbes as "the so-called Family Hour" (whether the use of "so-called" is a case of the PTC finally acknowledging that the Family Hour doesn't really exist or – more likely – is a protest against the networks who fail to acknowledge the "existence" of the Family Hour, is unknown). The PTC was scathing in their denunciation of News Corp for running the show: "The programming executives at News Corp. and its subsidiaries have demonstrated once again their blatant disregard for children and families, in spite of giving considerable lip-service about being responsible. Coming less than a year after airing a scripted 'S-word' on an 8 p.m. broadcast program, this contemptuous act – airing an adult-themed, mature-rated, 10 p.m. cable program on broadcast television during the family hour – illustrates just how little they truly care about their public interest obligation." Later they add "More children watch television during the 8 pm hour than on Saturday mornings or after school. If the Fox executive suite truly cared about acting responsibly, the company wouldn't put an adult-targeted, MA-rated cable program on one of its broadcast networks at the start of the family hour. Their FX channel has proven to be a cable network that regularly – and proudly – attacks the decency sensibilities of most American families, and now this same graphic and gratuitous content is airing on broadcast television at 8 pm. This behavior proves once again that the self-serving TV ratings system managed by the industry is a sham. Television networks cannot be trusted to rate their own programs. If parents are ever going to trust and rely on a TV ratings system for content information, the system needs to be accurate, consistent and transparent. The networks must be held to an objective and uniform standard, and there needs to be a real consequence for failing to apply ratings accurately."

In a separate article the PTC outlines their objections to the show which primarily seems to be that not enough was cut to meet the standards that the PTC feels should be met for the rating and descriptors used by the network. The FX airing of the show was rated as TV-MA SL (Mature Audience, Sexual Content, Language). The My Network TV version was listed as TV-14 SLV (Sex, Language, Violence). The PTC notes that an article in Variety about the airing of the show stated "the Damages episodes will be edited to reflect a TV-14 rating, which means some of the language will be trimmed, as well as some sexual content, from the original FX airing." In other words, violent scenes would not be edited. The PTC then stated that "Comparing the FX premiere episode with the MyNetworkTV premiere episode, the only discernable difference is that all instances of the "s-word" and "g-ddamn" were cut, as well as a few (but not all) instances of the word "bitch." Left uncut were the words "ass," "hell," "damn," and "bitch," which are not uncommon for TV-14 broadcast shows." In other words the show had been edited to bring the show down to the common standard for a TV-14 broadcast show. They next turn their attention to a bedroom scene that was edited from 55 seconds to 30 seconds. Here's the PTC description of the scene: "there is a scene in which the main character Ellen and her fiancée Noah are clearly having sex. The viewer can see Ellen drag her hands down Noah's bare back, which is glistening with sweat. They passionately kiss, Ellen is shown on top of her fiancée smiling while Noah is on the bottom, smiling up at her." The PTC states "The FX version of this scene is 55 seconds long, while the MyNetworkTV version is 30 seconds long – so, to be fair, the executives did "edit" the scene. But are network executives making the argument that if a sex scene on broadcast is shorter than on cable that somehow makes it appropriate content for a 14-year-old? What is of real concern is that the scene was edited for length, not for content." They may very well be arguing just that. During the period of the Production Code in Hollywood after all the duration of a kiss was one of the defining factors as to whether or not a scene was acceptable (any kiss lasting longer than 3 seconds was defined as lewd, and there could be no open mouth kisses). A 30 second sex scene may indeed be acceptable in the context of a TV-14 series with an S descriptor. Finally the PTC objects to two scenes of violence which were unedited between the FX and MyNetwork TV editions despite the fact that the FX version carried a TV-MA rating but no V descriptor while the MyNetwork TV shows had a V descriptor for the TV-14 rating. In other words the violence in the cable version was not sufficient to earn the V descriptor but in the broadcast version it was. In terms of violence the episode would seem to be correctly rated.

The PTC's new Misrated feature seems to be directed primarily at ABC's series (well really ABC Family's series) Greek and their most recent attack on the show contains what has to be the most absurd and prudish thing I've seen in a while, something literally worthy of The Simpsons' Ned Flanders. The piece starts with a piece of dialog between Casey and her ex-boyfriend Cappie which is apparently about coffee: "Nothing starts the day off right like that first cup of Joe. After all, your first is always the best, don't you agree? The one that's most special?" The PTC points out that "Cappie is referring to the fact that he and Casey had their first sexual encounter together." But then they bring out the next part of the same scene where Cappie's fraternity brother comes in. His nickname is "Beaver": "Beaver: 'You guys are way too into your coffee. Pardon. I spy a tasty morning muffin. [Beaver then walks over to Rebecca.] Beaver: 'Top of the morning, muffin.'" The PTC points out "What is the most offensive about this content is that both the term 'beaver' and 'muffin' are commonly used vulgar slang for a part of the female anatomy, and they are deliberately used to emphasize the sexual nature of the conversation." Heavens, what they must think of Beaver Cleaver, the little sex fiend! They also choose to ignore the fact that "muffin" is frequently used as a non-sexual term of endearment and even directed at children. The PTC decries the fact that the episode is rated TV-PG SDL (Sex, Dialog, Language): "If Greek's content is only rated TV-PG SDL, one can only wonder what would warrant the TV-14 SDL rating." In the case of the scene described above, we are obviously seeing double entendre at work, material that more mature people will catch (and presumably be amused by) but which younger and less sophisticated viewers wouldn't catch. The PTC is so fixated on sexual innuendo that they deliberately ignore the non-sexual contexts that exist for the situation. Not that I'm surprised of course

The PTC's Broadcast Worst of the Week was more reruns; in this case a two hour package of Family Guy episodes tied to the new Fox movie Superbad "the latest sex comedy geared for teens and young adults." Despite the fact that the PTC says that the episodes contain "some of the most outrageous and depraved content of the season" they are episodes which have aired before. Instead let's turn to the PTC's Cable Worst of the Week, which is "repeat offender" Rescue Me. Their approach on this one is interesting. They start off with their usual objections to the show: "Rampant alcoholism. Violent outbursts. Rape. Falling babies? Those four lines now sum up Rescue Me, FX's gritty chronicle of the tragic New York City firefighter Tommy Gavin. But last week the program reached a new low: depicting falling, and dying, babies." Which you would think is all they object to but you'd be wrong. They actually try to argue about the artistic merits of the show, but in typical PTC fashion they don't get it: "The producers of the show undoubtedly considered the August 1^st episode critical to Tommy's growing sense of alienation." They delineate the events of main character Tommy Gavin's life include his apparent reconciliation with his ex-wife because of a new baby. Then they describe his life falling apart – the baby turns out to be his brother's and his ex-wife is suffering from post-partum depression. And here is where they don't get it: "At this point the show's writers and producers had a choice: they could have depicted, however hyperbolically, the real difficulties of infidelity and parenthood, or they could go for cheap thrills. You can guess which they chose: Tommy, contemplating infanticide is shown dangling Janet's baby over a city bridge." Here's the thing though; it wouldn't be in character for the Tommy Gavin we know deal with this any way other than this. Tommy is an incredibly flawed and haunted human being (arguably schizophrenic), and this is in character for him. And then they got into the question of "art": "Art, whether on your television or in the Louvre, deals with profound – and sometimes ugly – truths of human nature. But disagreement can and should occur on the line between aesthetic evolution and graphic sensationalism. That basic cable viewers – whether offended or enthralled by cable's programming, whether avid watchers or V-Chip users – are forced to subsidize all basic cable programming is not only unfair, but violates another component of art: the spectator's right of choice."

It is, as I have said numerous times, a bogus argument. Basic cable is advertiser supported, a fact which the PTC acknowledges every time they criticize advertiser for putting their commercials on Rescue Me. The cable user is paying for the cable network's delivery of programming; the advertisers pay for the shows (yes it's a bit simplistic but essentially true) and if the audience isn't there – as was the case with E!'s most recent edition of The Simple Life – the show will be cancelled because the advertisers won't support the show. It is a clear proof that "the spectator's right of choice" really does exist and it exists through the medium of the On-Off switch on the TV. I you don't like the show, don't watch it. If enough people don't watch the show it will end up being cancelled.

Sort Of Self Explanatory

Merv Griffin – 1925-2007

Merv Griffin was a giant of the Television industry. The former big band singer parlayed his talent and entrepreneurial skills into a multi-million dollar empire, and he seemed to have fun doing it.

Born Mervyn Edward Griffin in San Mateo California he first came to public attention as a 19-year old singer on KFRC radio in San Francisco. This in turn led to a job touring with Freddy Martin's big band. Following his time with Martin he started a successful solo career in night clubs which allowed him to start an independent record label, Panda Records. His album "Songs by Merv Griffin" was the first to be recorded on magnetic tape and his recording of "I've Got a Lovely Bunch of Coconuts" sold over 3 million copies and was number one on the hit parade. Doris Day "discovered" him during one of his nightclub appearances and arranged a screen test for him at Warner Brothers. He appeared in a number of relatively minor roles in films in the early to mid-1950s the most famous of which was So This Is Love in which he and Kathryn Grayson (in her first film role) shared the first "open mouth kiss" in American movies.

During the '50s he was also a popular guest on various TV shows as a singer. In 1958 he was selected by Mark Goodson and Bill Toddman to host their game show Play Your Hunch, which he did for four years (1958-1962). During a live broadcast of Play Your Hunch, Griffin was able to manage an impromptu interview with Tonight Show host Jack Paar after Paar wandered onto the set of the show (Paar was superstitious and was trying to avoid the elevators at Rockefeller Center for some reason). This led to him guest hosting the Tonight Show, which in turn led to NBC offering him an afternoon talk show in 1962. The NBC version of The Merv Griffin Show failed but NBC gave him the opportunity to host and produce a new game show called Word For Word. This too lasted a single season. Griffin then revived the afternoon Merv Griffin Show this time as a syndicates show produced by Griffin and distributed by Group W (Westinghouse broadcasting which also distributed the Mike Douglas Show. Griffin's affiliation with Group W ended in 1969 when he made an ill-advised move to CBS to challenge Johnny Carson in late night (interestingly, one of Griffin's directors – the only one credited by IMDB - was Dick Carson, Johnny's brother). Network interference led to numerous conflicts even as the show wallowed in the ratings – sometimes even losing out to Dick Cavett on ABC. Eventually CBS cut Griffin loose but realizing the end was near at CBS he had already set up a distribution deal with Metromedia for a renewed version of the daytime Merv Griffin Show which ran from 1972 to 1986.

During this time Griffin was also busy as a game show producer. In 1964 he created Jeopardy for NBC, based on an idea that his then wife Julann who had the idea of turning the old quiz show staple of asking questions and giving answers on its head by giving the players answers and having them formulate questions. In addition to producing the show Griffin also wrote the music including the "Final Jeopardy" theme. This first version of Jeopardy hosted by Art Fleming ran until 1975. NBC allowed Griffin the opportunity to create the replacement for Jeopardy and came up with a word puzzle based on "Hangman" called Wheel Of Fortune hosted by Chuck Woolery (later replaced by Pat Sajak) and Susan Stafford (replaced by Vanna White) as hostess and "letter turner." The show was a modest success for NBC – it featured a shopping round after each game finished where players had to spend their winnings, frequently on some of the most tasteless kitsch you've ever seen (lots of brass) – but really took off in 1983 when Griffin syndicated the series. Jeopardy was also revived in 1984 with Alex Trebek replacing Fleming (who had hosted a short-lived revival of the show on NBC in 1978-79).

In 1986 Griffin ended his syndicated talk show – he decided that it was the right time based on changes in the marketplace – and sold his production company (and Jeopardy and Wheel Of Fortune) to Columbia Pictures Television – then owned by Coca-Cola – for $250 million. He soon became involved in real estate development. One of his first purchases was the Beverly Hilton Hotel which he bought for $100 million and spent $25 million refurbishing. He also became involved in a feud with Donald Trump over control of Resorts International, which ended with Trump gaining control of the Taj Mahal Casino project – then under construction – and Griffin wining the Resorts Atlantic City (the former Chalfonte-Haddon Hall Hotel) and the Paradise Island resort. Griffin was also involved in residential real estate and horse racing. Most recently he returned to his roots as a TV producer producing the psychic readings show Lisa Williams: Life Among the Dead for the Lifetime Network, and a new syndicated game show called Merv Griffin's Crosswords which will debut in September. In 2001 he also returned to the recording studio with the album It's Like a Dream

Griffin's last TV appearance (not counting an appearance on Entertainment Tonight) was as a guest on The Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson in November 2006. Griffin had been diagnosed with prostate cancer in 1996 but had apparently successfully beaten the disease. He was admitted to Cedars-Sinai Hospital last month with a recurrence of the disease. According to doctors at the hospital the cancer had spread to other organs in an "unexpected and immediate'' manner.

As a game show producer Merv Griffin had a genius for taking a simple idea – a trivia quiz where the contestant gives the question instead of the answer; the kids' game "Hangman" – and make it a challenging and, more importantly, entertaining concept. It is as a talk show host that he truly shone, at least for me. While NBC cancelled the original version of the Merv Griffin Show as "being 'too sophisticated' for the housewife audience," he seemed to know that he had the right formula. While never as intellectual as Dick Cavett's various shows, Griffin didn't avoid intellectually challenging guests. Amongst his guests were Bertrand Russel, Pablo Cassals and Will & Ariel Durant. Other guests included at least four US Presidents, Robert Kennedy, John Lennon (when he was still with The Beatles) and Martin Luther King. His shows encouraged new talent including Jerry Seinfeld and Richard Pryor. The DVD set The Merv Griffin Show: 40 of the Most Interesting People of Our Time includes such guests as Richard Nixon, Ingrid Bergman, David Niven, Roger Vadim and then wife Jane Fonda, Grace Kelly, Laurence Olivier, John Wayne and Jack Benny. Orson Welles was a frequent guest – usually doing a magic trick during his each of his fifty or so appearances. In fact the DVD set includes Welles's last appearance with Griffin, recorded just hours before Welles died. And virtually all of this was done for an audience of "housewives" who according to NBC were too unsophisticated or this sort of material. Merv Griffin understood his audience better than the network weasels and built an empire out of it. If for nothing else he should be remembered for that.

Following is an excerpt from an episode of the Merv Griffin Show featuring a song by Howard Keel (before Dallas) followed by an interview.

New Poll - Who Should Win The Emmy For Outstanding Actor In A Comedy?

Usual disclaimers apply, please vote for the Actor that you think should win, not necessarily who you think will win. Sometimes (usually) there's a difference. This poll runs until August 14^th. Feel free to comment on your vote in this post.

Poll Results - Who Should Win The Emmy For Outstanding Supporting Actress In A Drama?

I seem to see a bit of a pattern emerging in the polling numbers this year – you like women better than you do men. In the four categories that I've done polls for so far this year, votes for Supporting Actress in Comedies and dramas have exceeded votes for Supporting Actor by more than 2 to 1 (30 for the Actress categories, 14 for the Actors). I don't know what to make of it; I'm just noting the trend.

Let's get down to the actual numbers. There were 12 votes cast. Tied for fifth with no votes were Katherine Heigl from Grey's Anatomy and Aida Turturro from The Sopranos. In fourth, with one vote (8%) is Lorraine Bracco from The Sopranos. In third place, with three votes is Chandra Wilson from Grey's Anatomy. And in the first tie of the year the winners with four votes each (33%) are Rachel Griffiths from Brothers & Sisters, and Sandra Oh from Grey's Anatomy.

As I did with the Supporting Actors in a Drama, I'm going to come right out and say that I expect the Academy to vote for one of the two actresses from The Sopranos, and I will editorialize enough to say that if they do vote for an actress from the Sopranos it should be Aida Turturro for playing the shrewish Janice. She is a thoroughly dislikable character who basically turned into this generation's lesser version of the poisonous Livia Soprano (Livia of course was named for the wife of Augustus who has traditionally been portrayed as the power behind the throne who was not above using murder – frequently with poison – to further her objectives).

I'm not surprised by the lack of support for Turturro or Bracco in the poll. For whatever reason people who vote in my polls seem to support broadcast series more than they do cable shows. Again, I'm not judging, just noting the trend which is replicated in previous year's polling results. Nor am I surprised with Katherine Heigl's poor performance. The plot arc that her character of Izzie Stevens has followed has been showy but dare I say that it has also frequently seemed absurd even for Grey's Anatomy, from her extended mourning for Denny (she spent the first episode of the season lying on the floor in a pink prom dress) through her continual indecision about what to do with the $8 million that he left her in his will, to her drunken night of adulterous sex with George and sudden realization that she loves him. I blame the lack of strong supporting roles for women in most TV series for her nomination.

Chandra Wilson in Grey's Anatomy on the other hand is a worthy nomination. Miranda Bailey is one of the best characters on Grey's Anatomy and that includes Ellen Pompeo's Meredith. She's a joy to watch, at turns funny and serious, a no nonsense woman who is willing to kick butt or to comfort people as needed. As my mother puts it, "she makes the show."

Sandra Oh, on the other hand is another example of the "co-lead" syndrome that frequently shows up in the supporting categories. Christina is at least as much the focus of the show as Pompeo's Meredith and she stand out from the rest of the cast, male and female in this regard. In this season she has had the more compelling story arc as her relationship with Burke moved towards marriage despite all of her personal internal conflicts about the idea. One can only wonder what would have happened in her character's life if Isaiah Washington had been retained by the producers. As for Rachel Griffith's, I have to confess that I've never watched an episode of Brothers & Sisters. My fellow blogger Toby wrote in the comments "This is a category which could fit your description of the supporting player being the second lead – at least for Heigl and Griffiths. Wilson, Turturro, and Bracco were the real supporting players." As I said, I would add Sandra Oh to the list of second leads. I find it interesting that Toby regards Rachel Griffiths as the second lead in this series when you consider that it is nominally at least built around Calista Flockhart's character, Kitty Walker, and that Sally Field (who plays Nora Walker) is nominated for Outstanding Actress in a Drama. Because I haven't seen the show I can't really judge it; I do however know and respect Rachel Griffith's work and abilities as an actress from her work on Six Feet Under. Still, if I were to mention a likely winner other than the two actresses from The Sopranos my vote would probably go to Sandra Oh.

Feel free to comment about this evaluation. New poll up in a few minutes.

The Power Of Carey

I have a theory about game shows, specifically game shows with an escalating prize fund – they shouldn't be too easy. Being easy is what seems to have killed Identity, the show which featured Penn Jillette as host. In a total of twelve episodes, three people won the top prize of $500,000, and one came close by winning $250,000. The first person to win $500,000 on Identity did it on the first night. Considering how long it took for someone to win $1,000,000 on Who Wants To Be A Millionaire. The hope and expectation that someone would win the show's big prize helped to build tensions and make the show a big success – at least for a time. The same can probably be said for Deal Or No Deal. People are watching, in the hopes of being able to say that they saw someone win a million on the show. After watching the first episode of The Power Of Ten I have to wonder if the game is too easy.

Certainly the premise of the show is fairly simple. To start, two contestants face off in an elimination round. They are asked up to five questions based on a survey of Americans. The person to guess the closest percentage of Americans who gave the answer that host Drew Carey asked about wins that question. For example, the first question asked was "What percentage of Americans said they have a better relationship with their parents as an adult than they did as a child?" Jamie answered 74% while Maureen answered 56%. Jamie won because the correct answer was 89%. In fact Jamie won the first three questions asked and won the elimination round.

Once the elimination round was complete, the winner of the round gets five questions, again based on surveys of Americans. The first question is worth $1,000 with the prize value increasing by 10 times the previous prize. The question wrong their prize drops by a power of 10. I believe that the reduction is from the prize level that the player currently has rather than the level he is trying to win – in other words if the player has won at the $100,000 and answers incorrectly at the $1 million level the prize received will be $10,000 rather than $100,000. The player can walk away with what they have at any time before they lock in their answer for the next level. The questions are of relatively equal difficulty the modifier for each level is the range in which the correct answer has to fall – the range for the $1,000 question is 40% and it drops by 10% so the million dollar question has a range of 10%. But a million dollars isn't the highest level. The show's biggest prize is $10 million. It is also the toughest level to win. Instead of being asked a survey question at that level the player has to state the exact percentage of Americans who answered the million dollar question from the 10% range. In other words if the answer is 32% and the player correctly guessed that the answer fell between 25% and 35% at the million dollar level, the player has to answer 32% to win $10 million.

There are some nice bits of what we used to call "chrome" in the wargaming community. Instead of a number pad for players to enter percentages they use a handle to adjust their predictions. There are no "helps" but the player has a friend or family member sitting nearby who can give them suggestions of what they feel the answer should be. They also show the contestant what the audience thinks is the correct answer. The audience poll results are presented as a rather nifty combined Column and Line chart – well it's nifty if you're into charts and I sort of am. I also like the way that the graphic showing the actual percentage moves up and down the range before finally settling at the actual answer. Okay, so it really doesn't take much to impress me, but it is fun to watch the contestants in the elimination round grow elated when the "bouncing ball" is closer to their answer than the other players and become crestfallen when it moves the other way. It's a simple pleasure, but it's mine.

The math in this game is rather interesting. In Poker there is an idea known as "pot odds." Essentially you compare the amount of money you have to wager with the odds of you winning the hand based on what you know about the cards you have and the "outs" that will allow you to improve your hand to a winning hand. If the return on your bet is greater than the odds of you winning the hand you should call the bet. In virtually all of the situations in The Power Of Ten the odds favour the player continuing. At the $1,000 level (where of course the player has literally nothing to lose) the 40 point margin of error means that the odds are 1.5-1 (or 3-2) against the player winning, but then the answer to the question is usually so obvious that player is virtually guaranteed to win. At the $10,000 level and a 30 point range, the odds are 3.33-1 (or 10-3) against, while at the $100,000 level and a 20 point range the odds are 4-1 against. Now I'm not sure what happens if a player loses at the $10,000 dollar level but at the $100,000 level, where a wrong answer drops the player down to a $1,000 prize, the player is wagering $9,000 (the difference between what the person "has" and what they'd walk away with if they lose) so the return on the bet would either be 11.1-1 (because the $100,000 is the pot before you put in your wager) or 10.1-10, which makes it a good bet. This also holds true at the $1 million level, where you're risking $90,000 to win a million. The pot odds remain the same, but because the range is now 10 points the odds of winning have slipped to 9-1 against. Even then it is still a good bet. The $10 million level is the really tricky one because I think the producers are playing a trick here. It seems as though there are actually eleven possible answers meaning that the odds are so close to the expected return as to make no real difference. The producers add pressure of course by emphasising that the answer had to be exactly right but in fact it isn't that much different from choosing the correct 10% range from 100 – the odds of getting the right range are exactly the same.

Of course, no one outside of the contestants' families was really watching the show for the actual game, and certainly they weren't watching for the whole business of odds and expectation of return on bets. Virtually everyone watched hoping to figure out just how good Drew Carey would be as a game show host and whether he was the right person to take up Bob Barker's skinny microphone. I'm not great expert, but I'd say that he's likely to do reasonably well. He works well with the contestants and obviously has a good sense of humour. More to the point he seems to be on the player's side. He'll even say when he thinks the player's guess might be a bit high or a bit low – fortunately he doesn't know the actual polling results so he cna only give his opinions. There are a few week points. Carey sometimes seems a bit dependent on the teleprompter, and I find his laugh more than a little annoying. Still, based on his performance on Power Of Ten he shouldn't do to badly when he goes on the big show.

I held off on completing this review until the second episode of Power Of Ten aired so that I could see a bigger sample of the game. In the first episode the first contestant on the show, Jamie Sadler a student at Florida University, won a million dollars. Drew Carey actually joked that the producers never expected anyone to get that high. The two contestants on the second episode seemed to bear this out. Both contestants busted out at either the $10,000 or $100,000 levels (CBS is doing a poor job of updating the show's website so I don't have details that I can refer to). The show is a good platform for Carey to reintroduce himself to the public as a game show host prior to taking over at The Price Is Right. As for the game itstelf I think that you will continue to see people taking the risk to go for the million dollar prize. The odds are not outrageous as far as what you're putting up to potential return. It also wouldn't surprise me to see one or more people trying for the $10 million prize and actually locking in an answer. I am concerned that the fact that it may be too easy to reach that level might hurt viewership. People might get bored if it is too easy for someone to win a million dollar prize.

Get The Hell Out Of The Kitchen

Like a lot of people, I have come to a conclusion about this season of Hell’s Kitchen, which entered its final phase – probably spread over a couple of episodes – last Monday. And that conclusion is that neither of these people should be entrusted with their own restaurant at place as classy as Las Vegas’s Green Valley Ranch. Actually, none of the contestants this year should have been despite one of the contestants having a raw talent that might have made her a winner.

(Not that they’ll actually get their own restaurant of course. Heather West, who won last season, actually received a job at a level "suitable to her experience" at Green Valley Ranch's sister resort Red Rocks. This was determined to be senior chef under Executive Chef Renato DePirro at the already established Terra Rosa, rather than being executive chef at a restaurant built to her own specifications. Season One winner, Michael Wray, was offered his own restaurant, but this was apparently superceded by an offer by Gordon Ramsay to work for a year in one of his London restaurants. Wray accepted but then his wife refused to go. After this, according to Wray, he was given "a chunk of cash and US$75,000 in restaurant equipment" for winning. Hardly the prize promised.)

Not that this season hasn't been entertaining. In fact the cast seems to have been selected for its entertainment quality, with culinary ability seeming to be a secondary concern. That's the only way that I can explain Aaron, the overweight retirement home chef, Eddie, the diminutive grill cook (he suffered for Kidney disease as a child which stunted his growth agave him an almost childlike appearance), or Bonnie, the bubbly blonde nanny/personal chef. There were also experienced cooks. If titles mean anything then Rock had the biggest – Executive Chef – and there were a couple of sous-chefs and line cooks. One of these was Jen, who when talking to the others later in the competition revealed that she had worked as a pastry chef in a number of restaurants including Morimoto in Philadelphia (the first American restaurant of Iron Chef Masaharu Morimoto). And then there was Julia, the short order cook from Atlanta who worked in a Waffle House (apparently a southern chain of "low-rent roadside cafe[s] featuring waffles" – like IHOP only worse).

Entertainment-wise the show got off to a great start when candidate Aaron (the retirement home chef) broke into tears when Chef Ramsay mentioned his name. I didn't say "yelled at him," or "swore at him," I said mentioned his name. And this is a man in his forties! As someone (was it Jed Clampett) once said, there's something wrong with that boy. Then during service on that same night, Ramsay coined what would be the tagline for this season – "Hell's Bitches." The Women's team spent so much time arguing that it was amazing that they got any food out. Even more amazing was that they relegated Julia to peeling potatoes or apples or something while three of them tried and failed to fry an egg properly. And then they had the utter gall to try to get her removed because she didn't have the "necessary" fine cuisine credentials. Their chemistry didn't get much better as the weeks went on either. A major problem was Melissa, who decided that the team needed a leader and that would be her. The only trouble was that not only wasn't she good at it, the quality of her performance as a chef went downhill rapidly. So did her appearance – her hair became wilder looking and there was a strange blemish on her chin that almost seemed to resemble a "soul patch" beard

Of course things weren't entirely rosy over on the men's side. Not only was Aaron a weeper, he was also not well. He fainted on a couple of occasions and on the last he hit his head and had to be removed from the show for serious health reasons. Meanwhile Rock emerged as a star. And Rock would tell you that Rock was a star because Rock started talking about Rock in the third person. It's a good thing that Rock emerged as a star even though he was never acknowledged as the leader (because for the most part the men rejected his leadership) because they tended to be a bunch without much in the way of personality let alone skills. With Aaron and Eddie gone they were a pretty dull bunch compared to the fiery and argumentative women.

Later episodes maintained the entertainment factor once the two teams merged into one. In a reward challenge to serve "trendsetters" (which Jen thought meant people like "Mariah, or the Rock", which she said would make her pee her pants!) which turned out to be 100 high school students, Julia won with a grilled chicken and cheese sandwich while the others were trying to adapt gourmet food for high school palates. The prize was a trip to the Green Valley ranch with Jen and Julia being confronted with a bidet – or as she insisted on calling it, a booty washer – for the first time in her life. In the same episode we saw Ramsay quite literally chasing Josh (the only other man left on the show) out of the kitchen and not quite out onto the street; cutlery – well okay, a spoon – was thrown. In the next episode, when they were down to three chefs Ramsay let them run the pass, but first gave them an opportunity for some assertiveness training, which consisted of each one yelling at Ramsay and him giving them tips on how to motivate by yelling. As it turned out blonde cheerful and slightly ditzy Bonnie nailed Ramsay on the first attempt, earning a "bloody hell" from him. This was in stark contrast to Rock, who had exhibited a fiery temper on several occasions – notably when with his team he was ordered to go through the restaurant's garbage to find recyclables – who turned positively meek when given the chance to yell at Ramsay.

So it's clear that Hell's Kitchen has been entertaining this year. The problem is that in a reality/competition where the grand prize is "a restaurant of your own" at the Green Valley Ranch resort, there wasn't one person I'd want cooking for me – well maybe Julia but even she had her inconsistent times. And really that's what it's all about – consistency. I'm not talking here about the woman who tried to serve rancid crab, or the one who pulled pasta out of the trash and tried to serve it on the grounds that the heat from cooking it again will kill the bacteria. That sort of thing happens every season on Hell's Kitchen and usually a one-time mistake – admittedly that's usually because Ramsay finds out about the perpetrator and runs them out of the restaurant on a rail but still it almost never happens a second time. Indeed, Bonnie threw out an entire tray of Monkfish before service because she believed them to be bad – Sous-Chef Marianne caught her and with Scott informed her that the Monkfish smelled like Monkfish. Admittedly she should have asked someone about it, but at least she was concerned about the possibility of sending out bad food. No, it's the little things that they apparently didn't think were important. It's the fact that over the course of the entire series they seemed thoroughly incapable of producing a consistently edible risotto. It's that they tried to cover up their mistakes, like scraping the burned pastry off a Beef Wellington on more than one occasion, or tried to make a Wellington looks as if it was at required level of doneness by putting it in a flash oven. Josh was run out of the restaurant for making too many risottos before they were ordered (none actually edible) and for trying to precook far too much spaghetti and making a mess of it. Most importantly it was the fact that they felt it was good enough to serve the public. This sense that something that doesn't measure up to standards is "good enough" is anathema to fine dining – and indeed should be to a chain like Waffle House. It is anathema to Ramsay. If you've ever seen his British series Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares – an American version of which will be appearing on FOX in the Fall – you will have observed Ramsay's mantra; consistent quality food served in a timely manner. All of the other problems that were seen on the show feed into this problem of consistency. The teams this season have been amazingly unable to communicate amongst themselves while doing service. Some of it was game-playing – the game being the show – by Rock that left Brad floundering while Rock and Josh looked on, but some of it was simple refusal to listen to what the others were saying that led to main courses and side dishes not being ready at the same time, which happened a lot with the women.

This season of Hell's Kitchen delivered on entertainment value, but I think it fell flat with regards to finding a chef worthy of the prize. I am not one of those people who complains because Hell's Kitchen isn't Top Chef; who wonder why they're always serving Beef Wellington and risotto. Top Chef is about finding the "best" chef from the pool of contestants. That show's challenges naturally require them to produce different, innovative dishes every week. Hell's Kitchen is about working in and eventually running a restaurant, and who ever heard of a restaurant that totally changed the menu every week? The qualities that Top Chef is trying to find are not necessarily the ones that are essential to running a great restaurant. But I'm not totally convinced that Rock and Bonnie have those qualities either. Certainly I don't feel it in the way I felt that Heather did last season when I knew she was going to win practically from the first service, and I don't feel it in the way that I did in Season One with both Ralph (the runner-up who later appeared on Iron Chef America) or Mike, who actually won. Either Bonnie or Rock is going to "win" a restaurant. They just shouldn't expect to see my name on the reservation list any time in the foreseeable future – or longer.

Lucy’s Birthday

Okay children, its August 6^th and you know what that means. Pictures of TV's favourite redhead. Warning to certain people (you know who you are): that picture is at the end of the post.

Here's a fairly standard PR shot.

And here's one from the episode of I Love Lucy where she meets William Holden after previously making herself look like an idiot. So she disguises herself wearing a wax nose, which she proceeds to set on fire.


And finally, what celebration of Lucy's birthday would be complete without a visit from "naked Lucy" which is an art photo that she did sometime in the early 1930s when she was establishing herself as a model and a showgirl. Avert your eyes Sam and Ivan!

Five Blogs That Make Me Think

So I was having a perfectly nice Saturday evening contemplating a world without The Simple Life and the way that the PTC will spin things to make it look as though decent honest basic cable subscribers are still subsidizing this horrible show when I decided to check my comments and discovered that I have been tagged by Captain Incredible with another meme (apparently, my dear Captain, it's pronounce "meem" – I had always been pronouncing it (in my head) as "mem-ay", as though there was an accent aigu over the final "e" that had been dropped by the foolish Americans, but that's the influence of living in a bilingual country). This one though comes with a cute logo type thingie and the word "Award". And you know, I a sucker for awards – probably has to do with me not winning any as a kid.

Okay, so the rules:

1. If, and only if, you get tagged, write a post with links to 5 blogs that make you think.
   
2. Link to this post so that people can find the exact origin of the meme.
   
3. Optional: Proudly display the Thinking Blogger Award on your site with a link to the post that you wrote.

Well, I've done #2, so that leaves me with #1 and a minor conundrum. There are a number of blogs that make me think but with several of them I'm likely to get absolutely no response. I mean let's face it, if I tag Lydia Cornell or, Mark Evanier, or Alan Sepinwall at best I'm going to get a "huh, what?" and almost certainly I'll be ignored. And let's face it, what's the point of doing something like this and taking it seriously if you don't want to see what works for other people. Fortunately there are blogs that make me think that I know – or sincerely have a hope – of getting a response from.

1. Ivan at Thrilling Days Of Yesterday. His recent departure from the employ of the La Quinta hotel chain has sadly deprived us of some of his great stories about working as a night auditor, and dealings with such people as Slappy the "Security" Guard, but even without that, his long form ramblings on nostalgia are a joy. His reviews of old radio shows, movies and TV series that fly under the radar of the people at TVShowsonDVD.com make me want to buy them, though I never will. His recent post on a listing of the top 100 films (in which he participated) has some great commentary on such lists. Here's just one of Ivan's six points (and I agree totally): "Unless you can absolutely, positively convince me that Steven Spielberg is as underappreciated today as was Alfred Hitchcock at the peak of his powers, stop putting films like Jaws, E.T. and Raiders of the Lost Ark on these lists. You're embarrassing everyone.
   
2. if charlie parker was a gunslinger, there'd be a whole lot of dead copycats. Tom Sutpen was so upset with me the last time I did a meme and said that I wasn't going to bother tagging him because I knew he wouldn't reply that I figured I'd better include him on this one. And besides, the blog, which tom does with Stephen Cooke and Richard Gibson does make me think. The use of large form images with usually sparse text (usually no more than a title and a brief caption) has a significant impact.
   
3. Bill Crider of Bill Crider's Pop Culture Magazine. Bill has an incredibly eclectic mind and this blog shows it off. Whether it's his fascination with alligators and crocodiles, books, "she who must not be blogged about" (Paris Hilton), Big Foot, books (the ones he has written and the ones he has read), and basically whatever the hell interests him, Bill's aggregation of assorted news stories is a joy. Where else would you find a link to a story with the headline "Killer hippo poo is enemy number one"?
   
4. Sam Johnson of Yours Truly Sam-A-Rama. Sadly, lack of filthy lucre means that Sam doesn't post as often as he used to but when he does it's good. It may be a memory of Tom Snyder working in Savannah, or highlights from ComicCon – despite the fact that he didn't attend (too bad about the Iron Man preview clip) – or a rather heart-felt obituary for Tammy-Fay ("Throughout her entire life, from The PTL Club to the scandals to becoming a sort of cult hero, Tammy Faye faced it, mascara and all. When it came down to over a ten year battle with cancer, she kept on living with the grace she was given.") Sam almost always produces good stuff.
   
5. Ronniecat and her blog Hearing/loss. I've known her from rec.arts.comics.strips, since before we both discovered blogs. What was originally a blog dealing with her adult loss of hearing and the cochlear implant that has restored it, it has mutated into her personal blog with posts about her work with recent immigrants to Canada as an employee of an NGO, her cats, her family, her politics and plenty of other subjects. Currently Ronniecat is experiencing a bit of a computer problem but she'll work it out. Still, I sort of hate to do this too her.
   
   

New Poll – Who Should Win The Emmy For Outstanding Supporting Actress In A Drama?

Another six performer category, though surprisingly (or maybe not surprisingly given the quality of parts for actresses on television currently) the nominees come from just three different shows. As usual vote for who you think should win rather than who you think will win and feel free to give your reasons for thinking that in the comments section. Polling ends on August 9.

Poll Results - Who Should Win The Emmy For Outstanding Supporting Actor In A Drama?

Turnout wasn't as good for this poll as it was for the Supporting Actress in a Comedy poll. I don't know what that says about anything but only nine votes were cast for the six nominees – remember that in the Emmys additional performers will be added to the list of nominees if their total vote is within a certain percentage of votes of the fifth nominee.

Tied for fifth place with no votes are Masi Oka from Heroes and Michael Imperioli from The Sopranos. In a tie for second place, with two votes each (22%) are TR Knight from Grey's Anatomy, Terry O'Quinn from Lost, and William Shatner from Boston Legal. But the winner is Michael Emerson from Lost.

Let me get this out of the way first: I think that the Academy is going to give the Emmy to Michael Imperioli for The Sopranos. Not necessarily on the merit of his performance of course although Imperioli's performance as the drug addicted mobster and wannabe film writer Christopher Molasanti is usually riveting. No, I think he'll win because it's The Sopranos' final season and they're going to reward just about anyone associated with the show. Just my opinion of course.

Okay, so having said why I think the Emmy is going to go to Imperioli, let's look at the other nominees. I'm going to suggest that Masi Oka's nomination has a lot to do with Heroes being one of the few real successes of the 2006-07 crop of new series. It doesn't hurt that the show is Science Fiction, a genre that tends to regard itself as being under-represented. Nor does it hurt that Oka stands out in the ensemble cast but he is part of an ensemble cast. That said, his nomination is probably his Emmy moment. Sad to say, the same goes for Terry O'Quinn, the difference being that he's been here before. O'Quinn is a solid supporting actor though and sad to say the Outstanding Supporting Actor nomination usually goes to an actor who is usually closer to being the second lead in a show, and even more this year than in previous years Locke is more of a supporting character. William Shatner falls into that position of being second lead. Denny Crane has a lot more prominence in Boston Legal than most of the other actors on the series. A problem for Shatner is that while Boston Legal is labelled – rightly or wrongly – as a Drama, a lot of what makes Shatner stand out in the role of Denny Crane is comedic.

Which leads us to Michael Emerson. Playing Ben, the leader of "The Others" on Lost, he is in a role that is a supporting actor's dream. He plays a villain, which gives him a lot more prominence within an ensemble show than one of the protagonists. It helps considerably that Emerson isn't the usual type of villain. He's a small man which means that he leads with his intelligence and wits. Best of all is Emerson's theatrical training. It lets him position Ben as a calm but dangerous psychotic, almost like a cult leader who reigns by sheer force of will and calmly expressed and twisted "reason". It is deserving of an award, and I think he'd get it if he weren't up against a cast member from The Sopranos.