Thursday, September 20, 2007

Much Ado About...?

I have to confess, of the four shows that debuted on Wednesday night, the one I was looking forward to least was Kid Nation. On the other hand I knew it was also the show that I was going to have to write about on the first Wednesday of the new TV season. Why? I guess that, because of the CBS PR machine and the inadvertent push from law suits, the controversy over child labour laws, and everything else that has gone on surrounding this series, it has become the most hyped TV series of the season. It's certainly the one that everyone has heard about and I fully expect that the first episode at least will be the most watched show of the week.

For me that's a bit of a problem because based on what I've seen in the first episode I'm pretty sure it doesn't deserve to be. My perception is that the show is pretty much a clone of Survivor and I'm not sure it's a particularly well done one. Oh sure, there are differences. No one gets voted off for one thing, although the kids can drop out at the various town meetings if they choose to. Still there are other aspects that are very much like Survivor. The kids are split into groups, called "districts" rather than tribes, and there are reward challenges. But I'm getting ahead of myself. Let's try a recap of this week's episode and see if we can spot some of the similarities to the established series.

The show opens with host Jonathon Karsh telling us the tale of Bonanza City, New Mexico a town – we're told at least – was abandoned in 1885 after the people of the town were unable to make it work. The town in fact is a set used for movies although it is built on the ruins of the real Bonanza City. Now we're told a new group of pioneers will try to make a go of it, but this group is made up entirely of children between the ages of 8 and 15. The kids, or at least 36 of them, arrive in a yellow school bus. They aren't taken into town though, but are left near some push carts, a corral of goats and some boxes of chickens. Then four more kids arrive aboard what appears to be a military helicopter (it has what appears to be an Air Force insignia on it but it may be a helicopter used for movies). These four, Spelling Bee contestant Anjay (12), Beauty Pageant contestant Taylor (10), Boy Scout Mike (11), and student leader Laurel (12), are the town council, selected by the producers of course. There first task is to lead their new pioneers to their new home for 40 days.

It isn't necessarily an easy task. The kids have to lead the kids (of the human and goat varieties) down a road. At times the carts get bogged down in some mud and at least one boy suffers a muscle cramp. There's also dissension as Greg, at 15 one of the oldest of the group, claimed that Mike wasn't doing his share of work (in this case at least Greg was probably in the right, but it was a sign of things to come where he wasn't so right). Once they arrived at the town they started exploring. They found bunkhouses with some mattresses but no beds. They also found a communal kitchen with a wood burning stove. The obvious thing to cook is macaroni and cheese, but the adage about too many cooks spoiling the broth proved to be true particularly when none knows how to cook. They put the macaroni in the water too soon and put in too much. Finally one girl, Sophia, steps forward and after throwing out the badly cooked macaroni manages to get the group fed. She does it again the next morning, making pancakes from a recipe in a cook book. She tells everyone to take only one but some of the kids take more than one so that some of the smaller kids don't eat. This leads to an unofficial town meeting in which Eric confronts Mike. It gets physical with Greg pushing Mike and trying to intimidate him before another boy, Eric, intervenes in support of Mike.

The town councillors have been instructed to go to the town chapel where they'll find a book that will help them organize the town. They aren't able to do it the first day but eventually get around to it. The book tells them about the "history" of the town and suggests that they organize. There are four colours of bandanas in a box and the councillors are told to split the group into four teams – red, green, yellow and blue. The leaders are able to select the teams they'll lead based on whatever criteria they choose. Taylor on her Yellow team seems to gravitate to the younger children, while Anjay decides to go with Greg and his buddy Blaine on the Blue team or District. They seem to go a bit wild; during the night the graffiti (with chalk) most of the buildings in the word "Blue" and disrupt groups from the other districts by running in and shouting "BLUE!" Needless to say they believe that they`ll dominate things. Jonathon shows up again to tell the town that there are various jobs to be filled with money (in the form or Buffalo Nickels) to be paid, depending on which level of the town hierarchy they fall into. This will be decided based on "showdowns" which take place every three days. There are four levels: Laborers (paid 10 cents for duties including cleaning the outhouse, picking up garbage, and hauling water), Cooks (paid 25 cents to cook, wash dishes and care for the livestock), Merchants (paid 50 cents to run the grocery store, dry goods store and the saloon which serves root beer for a nickel), and the Upper Class (paid a dollar and basically can do what they choose). The first showdown requires the teams to carry derricks with pumps to various holes in the ground. There they pump water, which shoots out of the top of the derrick. They have to catch the water in buckets and then run back to the starting line to fill three bottles with water. The complication is that the water is coloured and you have to get your District colour. Which class a team ends up being depends on order of finish. In addition, if the task is completed within an hour the leaders will be able to choose between two bonus prizes for the whole town. Motivated by the desire to beat the Blue team with Greg and Blaine, Mike and the Red district manage to complete the challenge first with the Blue district coming second, the Yellow district third and the Green group fourth. They also manage – barely – to complete the showdown in time to win the bonus. It's a choice between seven additional outhouses or a Television. There's some debate before the leaders decide that seven outhouses (which one kid insists on calling a portapotty; anyone who has ever used an outhouse – and I have as a child – knows that there's a significant difference between the two) to supplement the one they have which to put it kindly stinks.

I missed much of the next section of the show – I was making my own dinner – so I missed the segment where the girls of the Yellow district made their first meal (apparently Taylor refused to clean up after saying "I'm a beauty queen; I don't do dishes."), the efforts by a couple of the boys to befriend little Jimmy (at 8 one of the youngest kids and terribly homesick), the spending spree by the Upper Class Red kids who spent most of their money on candy and pop, though one bought a copy of Henry V, or labourer Sophia dancing for nickels to buy a bike. Those I read about on the CBS website. What I did see however was the first official town meeting. The meetings are important in that they are an opportunity for the "citizens" of Bonanza City to change their leadership if they wish and to air grievances. Moreover they are an opportunity for any of the kids to declare their decision to go home because they can't cope. Jimmy, the 8 year old who was desperately homesick despite the best efforts of all of the other kids to make him feel like part of the group, decided to pull out. Taylor thought of leaving as well but eventually decided to stay. Finally came the awarding of the Gold Star. The council members had been told about the Star by Jonathon earlier but it came as a surprise to everyone else. The Star, supposedly made of real gold, is awarded to the person in town who the members of the council decide has been the hardest worker. It isn't just a trophy though, because the kid who wins it wins the value of the gold used to make it, $20,000. The council quickly decide to award it to Sophia for organizing in the kitchen before the official jobs board was created. It carried one further benefit – access to the only telephone in town for a phone call to her parents.

As you can probably tell, this has a lot of the characteristics of Survivor albeit without most of the backstabbing, though try telling Mike that after his several confrontations with Greg. There are challenges and rewards for both groups and individuals. At the same time the show's cast is entirely kids, and I hate to say it but more than a few of them are annoying, like the one who suddenly and inappropriately decided to quote Martin Luther King saying "I have a dream." The problem being that if I recall correctly this kid's dream had a lot to do with getting the extra outhouses. And that's part of the problem – kids on camera tend to be the biggest bunch of hams ever or they tend to shrink away from standing out. Another aspect is the behaviour of Greg in particular. He comes across as an out of control little punk – the town outlaw along with his buddy Blaine. Is this behaviour real or has he somehow been encouraged by the producers? Maybe he's just trying to gain camera time but it comes across as forced.

Then again the whole thing seems more than a little forced to me, the product of a bankruptcy of ideas that led someone to say "let's do Survivor but with kids." For all of the controversy, I am trying to write about the show as it is on the screen and what I'm seeing is depressingly ordinary. On Thursday I'll be watching adults doing much the same thing on Survivor and will, most likely, be more entertained. There at least I know what the point is – in this little saga of Bonanza City I'm not sure what anyone is trying to accomplish, most particularly the producers. For all of their talk before the show began of a society run by children what we are given is a town populated by children but one in which order and structure, in the form of pre-selected leaders, creation of groups and division of labour, and rewards (but so far at least no punishment), is imposed by adults even if the adults are unseen. The show has some attraction but on the whole I'm unhappy with the result even though I realise that there really aren't many other ways that this show could go. I'll probably stick with it for a couple of episode, but unlike K-Ville I have absolutely no expectation that it will improve beyond the current, rather lacklustre level. If I find something I like better I'll happily abandon this show.

Wednesday, September 19, 2007

K-Ville – Not There Yet But Maybe With Time

I frequently worry about writing about the debut episode of a new series. Pilots are, on the whole, not typical of the totality of a show. Sometimes a show is better than you'd expect based on the pilot. Sometimes the pilot is as good as it gets (and in some cases that's damning with very faint praise). The fact is though that a pilot serves two very big purposes – to sell the show to the network and to get the viewers to watch next week's episode instead of something else. A pilot has to be packed with exposition to introduce us to the principal characters, but it also has to grip the audience, whether it's an audience of TV Executives or an audience on Monday nights. FOX's new series K-Ville certainly gets a grip on the audience and holds it but to use another metaphor, at times the pilot feels like it's a mile wide and an inch deep and if they don't improve on that they could have problems.

K-Ville sets its location most effectively. Marlin Boulet and his partner Charlie are trying to help refugees on the I-10 freeway during Hurricane Katrina. Sent to their car to get a blanket to help someone with an injured leg, Charlie instead takes the car and speeds off, leaving his friend and partner alone. Cutting from that vignette to today we see a montage of images of devastation before we are eventually reintroduced to Marlin. He's making a sandwich when he spots a kid digging up a tree outside his house. The kid is stealing the tree "because people gotta landscape." Marlin is personally insulted by this – not only is the tree his but it's a cypress of the type that used to grow all over the city but now doesn't because the salt water from the flooding killed them all. Still the kid is one of his neighbours and in an ordinary place he wouldn't be stealing anything, let alone his neighbour's tree. We're soon introduced to another of Marlin's neighbours, a jazz singer who just bought a classic car ("cost two FEMA checks").

When Marlin gets to work – his police unit is based out of what looks like an old warehouse because their new HQ isn't finished yet – his boss introduces him to his new partner, Trevor Cobb. Cobb is from Cincinnati, an ex-soldier who did a tour in Afghanistan; these facts are enough for Marlin to question his motives or at least his sanity: "What is he, some kind of nut job?" They soon get their first job together; security at a benefit for the 9th Ward, the area where Marlin lives (and which is usually featured on real world news reports about the continued devastation in New Orleans). The featured performer is Marlin's neighbour and the host is the daughter of one of the city's wealthiest men, the owner of a major casino. Things seem calm enough until gunfire erupts killing Marlin's neighbour. Marlin and Cobb go off in hot pursuit, a pursuit which ends at the casino. They lose their suspect in the building. Marlin initially suspects the murdered woman's ex-boyfriend and goes to "question him"; questioning being a kinder and gentler word for tying him up and dropping him off the side off his commercial fishing boat until he gives them an alibi. When the alibi checks out they're forced to go back to square one. Another charity event is shot up. There's no high speed pursuit this time – the bad guys have put a bomb in the police car. Marlin and Cobb figure out that going to the casino wasn't random – it was part of the escape plan all along. They go to the casino to check the security footage of the entrance in hopes of figuring out where the shooter went but mysteriously, the security cameras at that moment were out of position (suspicious in itself). After another encounter with Charlie, who is now working security in the hotel attached to the casino, Marlin discovers that the casino's head of security and some of the other people he met with was actually a Gulf War vet who became a mercenary working for a company – Black River – which had provided security during the clean-up. They immediately become suspects, particularly after

Earlier Marlin's wife had been introduced. She's living in Atlanta with their very young daughter. The little girl was so traumatized by the storm that the sound of rain terrifies her, and even the sound of the wind means that her mother is up all night with her. They still love each other, but Marlin's attempt at a romantic evening with his wife are shattered when their daughter comes screaming down the stairs with a torrent of water following. A fire hose has been inserted into the daughter's room to flood it. Outside they find an ominous piece of graffiti – the address of Marlin's wife and daughter in Atlanta. Suddenly Marlin is mad. He brings in the three Black River mercenaries for questioning but between political interference – Black River is important for the war effort – and the fact that he has nothing proving positively that they are responsible for the murder or even the flooding of his house. They're let go. However Marlin discovers a motive for the attacks on the fund raising event. Large chunks of the 9th Ward have been bought up buy a development company, Orleans Renewal. The company is owned by Christina DuBois, the daughter of the Casino owner. She organized the relief events that were shot up but she also organised the attacks to scare people out of the 9th Ward. Her brother was killed in the area two years before the hurricane and she saw the aftermath of the storm as an opportunity to keep the people who had been forced out by the storm, people she felt had no sense of the value of human life, from coming back to the city. Cobb and Marlin arrest her, but before they can take her to jail, the Black River men attempt to silence her. They fail, but Marlin and Cobb take off in pursuit. The mercenaries seem to be getting away until Charlie crashes his car into theirs. He's taken hostage and the pursuit begins again, ending at a dock where the Black River men have a helicopter waiting. As the car with the wounded Charlie in it rolls off the dock, Cobb dives into the water to save him while Marlin uses a heavy chain to secure the helicopter to the dock. The denouement of the episode is a block party in Marlin's neighbourhood where his friends burn their "For Sale" signs because he has restored their confidence.

I am really torn about this show and I think it's because of the pilot. Anthony Anderson is superb as Marlin, a man suffering as much from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder as his ex-partner or his little girl. In Marlin it's held back but from time to time it shows up: he drinks on duty and doesn't give a damn and at a crucial moment he flashes back to his time on the bridge. It shows up in his choice not to follow the wife and child, both of whom he clearly loves, in abandoning the city that he's sworn to protect. What he went through during the storm made the city more important to him than his family; leaving it would be surrender. I'm less impressed with Cole Hauser as Trevor Cobb. Maybe it's because Cobb has a secret beyond what he's told anyone else – a secret that Marlin unravels in a single episode – or it may be that Cobb is currently a less interesting character because he doesn't have Marlin's faults (at least not that we know about yet). The fact remains that Hauser seems rather flat when compared with Andrews...and since most of his scenes are with Andrews that weakness is quite obvious. John Carroll Lynch is his usual workman-like self playing Marlin and Cobb's boss, Captain James Embry. Lynch clearly has a talent for accents – Embry's slight Nawlins patois is a long way from his most famous role as Norm Gunderson in Fargo, and while it's not as heavy as Dennis Quaid's accent in The Big Easy it is noticeable. We really don't get much time with most of the other cops on the team. In a guest role as Gordon Wix, leader of the Black River security team, William Mapother does his usual good job playing a superficially civilized but secretly very dark and dangerous man.

Where I really have a problem with K-Ville is in the writing. Strip away the whole post-Katrina New Orleans aspect and you have a standard cop who breaks the rules but gets results partnered with a straight arrow who is his exact opposite set-up. There's even the boss who isn't always in love with their methods but keeps them together because they're effective. It's pat and clichéd and the fact that it works in this case says more about Anderson and to a lesser extent Hauser than it does about the writing. I'd like to see a lot more character and story development here. In the episode there really wasn't much in the way of plot development; instead there were two big car chases. Right up until the revelation that Christina was behind the entire plot there was no indication that she was even connected to the Black River men. They could literally have been working for anyone at all. While her motivation was intriguing (not to mention more than slightly insane) we as an audience had absolutely no clue that it existed until it suddenly appeared seconds after Marlin found out about Orleans Renewal. I swear it seemed like it was revealed because they needed a mastermind and they needed to shoehorn everything about why everything was happening in between the incident at Marlin's home and the big car chase finale. More thought – and more time – was give to giving us the clues about Cobb's deep dark secret and how Marlin figures it out than was given to revealing the identity and motive of the person behind the major event of the episode. I find that to be extremely sloppy and poorly paced writing but it also doesn't entirely surprise me in a pilot episode where you are introducing not just the antagonists for the episode and their motivation but also the protagonists for the series. The question for me is will this continue.

I look at K-Ville and right now I see a lot of potential which in the pilot episode at least hasn't really been tapped. FOX promoted the series as the next groundbreaking drama but except for making the city of New Orleans, recovering from one of the biggest natural disasters to hit a major American city probably since the San Francisco Earthquake of 1906, almost a character in the show it isn't breaking new ground but rather going over well tilled soil. I hope that in later episodes the series does push the envelope more. I want this show to live up to its potential; I want it to succeed if only to remind people each week about New Orleans and what still needs to be done. The pilot episode was something of a disappointment but there's a ton of room in which to grow and to become what Fox promoted it as being, a groundbreaking new drama. It is definitely a show that I'll be checking in with to see if it lives up to what it can become. I can't call it a failure but right now, by most measures I can't whole heartedly call it a success either. It is definitely one to keep monitoring.

Monday, September 17, 2007

Debuts and Premieres: September 17-23 – And A New Poll Too!

Just for the sake of this series of postings, Debuts refers to season debuts for older shows, while Premieres refers to new series. Just to flash things up a bit, new shows will be in Red. (Times are Eastern – adjust appropriately).

September 17th

  • Deal or no Deal (NBC) 8 p.m.
  • Prison Break (FOX) 8 p.m.
  • K-VILLE (FOX) 9 p.m.

September 18th

  • Beauty and the Geek (CW) 8 p.m.

September 19th

  • KID NATION
    (CBS) 8 p.m.
  • America's Next Top Model (CW) 8 p.m.
  • BACK TO YOU (FOX) 8 p.m.
  • Til' Death (FOX) 8:30 p.m.
  • KITCHEN NIGHTMARES
    (FOX) 9 p.m.
  • GOSSIP GIRL (CW) 9 p.m.

September 20th

  • Survivor: China 9 p.m.

September 21st

  • Friday Night Smackdown (CW) 8 p.m.

September 23rd

  • CW NOW (CW) 7 p.m.
  • ONLINE NATION (CW) 7:30 p.m.
  • The Simpsons (FOX) 8 p.m.
  • King of the Hill (FOX) 8:30 p.m.
  • Cold Case (CBS) 9 p.m.
  • Family Guy (FOX) 9 p.m.
  • Shark (CBS) 10 p.m.

Now here's the poll question: Which of the new series premiering this week will be cancelled first? I'm going to include being put on indefinite hiatus as being cancelled – these shows can be like zombies and spontaneously resurrect but for most of them dead is dead and they get even worse ratings than they did the first time they showed up. Note that there's a "None" category just in case you think that all of these shows will get an order to finish the season (actually I may cut Kitchen Nightmares some slack on this since I don't think it was meant to go more than 13 episodes based on the original Fox schedule). Wouldn't that be a shocker!

As usual feel free to comment or bloviate here (bloviate being one of the great words in the English language, even if I sometimes – sometimes?! – engage in it too much). I'll end this one next Monday.

Update: I had old information about the premiere date of Gossip Girl. I've changed it here, but I can't change the poll so I'll have it on the list for next week. Thanks to Annie in Comments for the information The debuts that Annie mentioned for Desperate Housewives and Brothers and Sisters is a bit misleading though. These are recap episodes of the past season of both shows; new episodes in terms of content and story lines start on September 30.

Brian And Stuey At The Emmy

I promised this at the beginning of my Live Blogging of the Emmys last night but no one had put it up on YouTube by the time I finished up last night. Funny stuff, but notice which networks don't get their trash talked about. That's right, no mention of The CW (which never gets mentioned on the Emmys anyway - maybe they're hoping if they ignore it, the weblet will just go away) and the network the Emmys were on this year - FOX.


Sunday, September 16, 2007

2007 Emmy Live Blog


I'm prepping this a couple of hours before the Emmys actually start while I have the time. At 5:10 CST, Fox is "red carpeting" but I don't do the red carpet stuff. I have my integrity (I know but at least I want to believe I have some). The way this is going to work (I hope) is that I will update this post during commercial breaks, so let's just say that spelling isn't going to be my highest priority.

Just for the record, here are the winners that you, my readers selected during the polls that ran here during the past few weeks. If and when any of these shows or people win an Emmy I'll change the colour to red – if/when they lose I'll go to some other colour (right now I'm thinking yellow).

Supporting Actor Comedy – Neil Patrick Harris
Supporting Actress Comedy – Jenna Fischer
Supporting Actor Drama – Michael Emerson
Supporting Actress Drama – Sandra Oh
Actor Comedy – Alec Baldwin
Actress Comedy – Tina Fey
Actor Drama – Hugh Laurie
Actress Drama – Patricia Arquette
Reality Competition - Amazing Race
Comedy – The Office
Drama – Heroes

It's started. We got a satircial song about TV from Stuey and Brian Griffin - funny and probably on YouTube by now - when I finish this off I'll see if I can find it. The Ryan Seacrest shows up. He does some basic stuff about his hosting entertainment news shows (oxymoron) and red carpet duties. They're doing the show in the round - mistake; who do you talk to and who do you ignore? Ray Romano comes up to present Supporting Actor Comedy. Does three minutes of schtick that's still funnier than Seacrest. Winner Jeremy Piven. Next up Supporting actor Drama presented by Vanessa Williams, & America Fererra. They don't do schtick. Terry O'Quinn wins. Yea!

Tina Fey and Julia Louis Dreyfuss present Supporting Actress Comedy. Jaimie Pressly wins, and gets around to thanking her agent and lawyer! Poll now 0 for 3. Oscar Nominee Thomas Hayden Church wins for Supporting Actor Movie or Minisesries for something on AMC - Broken Trail. Didn't see it, probably most of you didn't either.

Ellen DeGeneres introduced a montage of "Topical One Liners" from late night talk shows which somehow morphed into a tribute to Tom Snyder, after which Eva Longoria and the (male) cast of Entourage presented the award for Supporting Actor in a Drama. It went to Katherine Heigl who had presented the Supporting Actor Miniseries award and the announcer pronounced her name wrong. The Entoruage guys got it right. Her mom said she didn't have a hop in hell of winning. Jennifer Love Hewitt, her breasts and Jon Cryer gave the Writing Variety Music or Comedy series to Late Night With Conan O'Brien.

There's a performance by Tony Bennett and Christina Aguilerra. Can I just say, loved him hated her? He made it seem so effortless while she pulled out vocal pyrotechnics. Alec Baldwin then presented the Director Variety Music or Comedy Program to the Director of Tony Bennett: An American Classic. Robert Duvall wins Actor in Miniseries or Movie for Broken Trail from Ally Larter and Kiefer Sutherland.

Queen Latifah does a tribute to the mini-series Roots after which several key members of the cast come out and present Outstanding Miniseries to Broken Trail. Its a sign of something that there are only three nominees in the category. Then Hayden Pannetiere and Neil Patrick Harris come out. Neil does a bit about her just turning 18 which is patriotic and sleazy! The Gay guy does sleazy. The announce the nominees for Guest Actor and Guest Actress in a Drama (presented at the Creatvie Awards along with best lighting) but only introduce Leslie Caron, winner for Guest Actress. She presents award for Director in a drama to Sopranos. David Chase also wins for writing for Sopranos. I`m falling behind.

I`m beginning to think that we`re in the group of categories no one cares about anymore.Steven Carrel presents the award for Variety Music or Comedy Series to The Daily Show and then gives the award for Variety Music or Comedy Special to Tony Bennett: An American Classic which was created by his son David Bennett. After Mark Harmon and Marcia Cross gives the award for Actress in a Miniseries or Movie to Judy Davis for The Starter Wife and Seacrest introduces the accountants, the Academy president announces the Governors Awards. Yawn.

Not much better in this segment. After Kyra Sedgwick, Glenn Close & Mary Louise Parker present Made For TV Movie to Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee, we get a tribute to The Sopranos introduced by Joe Montegna and done by the cast of Jersey Boys after which the very big Sopranos cast comes out, and I am left to ponder whether this whole business wouldn`t have been so much easier if I had a laptop instead of having to run to the bedroom every commercial.

I must be getting bored - I notice eye makeup - Katherine Morris`s made her look like a raccoon. There are three Movie and Miniseries categories announced - Lead Actress, Directing and Writing. Prime Suspect takes them all - Helen Mirren for Actress (announced by Sally Field and Patrick Dempsey), Philip Martin for Directing and Frank Deasy for Writing. In between Lewis Black rants about bugs telling us what`s coming up next or next week and about scrunched credits on shows - absolutely right!!!!

Lots of stuff in this one. Masi Oka tells us that the Emmys are honouring interactive TV and Tom from MySpace introduces the first honouree, CurrentTV. Al Gore Accepts but doesnèt announce for president. Next, Brad Garret gets to make jokes about what he can see looking down at Joelly Fisherès dress. She reacts like sheès really married to him - with sarcasm. The present the award for Individual Performance in a Variety or Music show - to Tony Bennett of course. Then Anthony Anderson (K-Ville) and Terry Hatcher introduce the winners for Guest Actor in a Comedy - Stanley Tucci (Monk) and Elaine Stritch (30 Rock). Elaine doesnèt work well with the prompter. They announce Directorof a Comedy, Richard Shepherd for Ugly Betty. Then Anderson and hatcher announce the winner for Writerr in a Comedy, Greg Daniels for The Office "Gay Witch Hunt."

Ran over on that last one. The next category was Reality Competition. Wayne Brady did what was apparently a funny bit based on his show Don't Forget The Lyrics in which Rainn Wilson and Kanye West competed to announce the winner Wilson "won" in the category "music of Kanye West." The winner of the Reality Competition Series was The Amazing Race...as usual.

Now things are getting into gear. Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert do a funny bit about the "green Emmys" and the environmental impact of awards shows before presenting the Emmy for Actor in a Comedy to Ricky Gervais. But since Ricky isn't there they give it to their good friend Steve Carell instead. next Hugh Laurie and Felicity Huffman come out to give the award for Oustandign Actress in a Drama to Sally Field. She ends her speach dedicating the award to Mothers and being agaisnt the war, which seems to prompt someone at FOX to cut her mike and shoot a picture of a globe. Then we get the Memoriam tribute which reminds us of just how many great people we've lost this year.

They're really pickng up the pace now, not much time for comedy bits. William Shatner gives the Emmy for Actress in a Comedy to America Ferrera of Ugly Betty. Then Jimmy Smits and Kate Walsh take a moment to not promote their new shows, (Cane and Private Practice) before giving the Actor in a Drama Emmy to James Spader?! He at least admits to being shocked: " I feel like I stole a pile of money from the Mob. And they're all sitting over there!"

They're really rushing now. Patricia Heaton and Kelsey Grammer give the Outstanding Comedy Award to 30 Rock - Tina Fey thanks "our dozens and dozens of viewers."

And the final award of the night, Outrstandind Drama Series, is presented by Oscar and Emmy Winner Helen Mirren. First she shows us then she tells us - The Sopranos and all I can say is "it's about bloody time. The producer or spokesperson or whoever he is has a funny take on Sally Field's speach - "If the world were run by gangsters...who knows, maybe it is."

Emmy afterthoughts: Bad night for the poll - 1 out of 11. If it were a major league ball player it wouldn't be in the minors it would be on the unemployment lines.

Were the producers being overly cautious when they "cut to the globe" and blanked out Ray Romano's joke and Sally Field's speach. I thought it might have been a production glitch the first time but the second time seemed deliberate.

Whose idea was it to do the show in the round? Doing an awards show in the round doesn't work on TV and it sure as hell doesn't work for the audience at the Shrine Auditorium, or at least the portion of the audience who only gets to see the backs of the award winners.

And while we're at it, can someone tell me why the Emmys come in extremely close to time but feel like like they've been going on for an eternity, while the Oscars run long but in a good year feel like the right size even when they're giving an award for costume design.

I'm sure I'll have more to say when I find out what others have been saying, but for now, McKee out!

Tiny little update: I was watching the FOX feeds of the Emmys because the show wsa delayed by an hour in Canada (!) and apparently what Sally Field said that was objectionable was "we'd stop this Goddamn war!" I have a suspicion that there would have been protests, mostly about taking the Lord's name in vain. Boring!

Poll Results – What Show Should Win The Emmy For Outstanding Drama?

Okay, I now know my audience a little better – a large number of you are comic book geeks!

I kid (because I love) but you have to admit, this poll does show something of a bias toward a show that would be described as Science Fiction and Comic Book related. Thirteen votes were cast – down to about half of the number that voted in several previous polls in this series (I put that down to my lack of posts in the last week or so). In fifth place, with no votes, is The Sopranos in a tie for second place with two votes each (15%) are Boston Legal, Gray's Anatomy, and House. But the winner, with seven votes (54%) is Heroes.

Okay, let's admit that the odds-on favourite to win this thing is The Sopranos. The show has finally ended and it went out with a metaphorical bang (actually it went out with an ending that is about as ambiguous as you can get but we're talking about the rump of the season that aired during the Emmy eligibility period). It's going to win for the same reason that Lord Of The Rings: Return Of The King won the Oscar – for the complete achievement of the series culminating with the final episodes.

Next up, I think you have to dismiss Boston Legal. I honestly don't see Boston Legal as being a drama. If Ugly Betty is a comedy why isn't Boston Legal? Admittedly, I don't watch the show – I think I've seen one episode ever, the one this season where William Shatner's performance in an early live drama (which inspired the series The Defenders) was used to set-up the main story – but this series seems to blur the lines between comedy and drama. I also think you need to dismiss Gray's Anatomy as a serious contender in the category simply because this past season was a mess. Of course the Emmy's – even in this category – are based on a single episode even though they don't say so in the nominations list. Gray's Anatomy had some outstanding episodes this season, notably the season finale where Christina is left at the altar, and I think Sandra Oh should win the Emmy for Outstanding Supporting Actress. Taken as a whole however I think that this season of the show has been a mess, centring on the whole business of George and Izzy, and Meredith "not swimming" being indicative to Derek of...something. I don't think either of these series deserve to be here and are only nominated out of force of habit and a bias against shows like Battlestar Galactica which was outstanding this season and in previous seasons.

Next up is House. I've seen critics say that House has had an uneven season. I don't entirely agree, but even if that is the case an uneven season of House is far superior to anything that Gray's Anatomy and Boston Legal put in the field this season. The use of David Morse's character of Detective Tritter may have seemed heavy handed at the time but I think it emphasised significant themes in the series that ran through the whole season. The supporting characters, particularly House's three fellows developed in their relationship to House. On the whole the show has been outstanding.

Now as to Heroes there are several reasons why I think the show was nominated, and several reasons why I think it won't win. First, it's a new series. Historically new series don't win Emmys in their first season; in fact it's rare that new series are even nominated. This nomination seems to be a bit of a sop to those who feel that the Emmys are "too exclusive." Second, it's a genre show and the genre is science fiction. If it is rare that shows in their first season get nominations it is virtually unheard of that science fiction shows get nominations. The difference between this series and Battlestar Galactica is that Heroes is on a major broadcast network and Galactica is on the Sci-Fi Network, and let's specify that most Sci-Fi Network series aren't that great. I have a totally unfounded suspicion that if Battlestar Galactica had been on HBO it would have been nominated every year, or at least short listed. Of course it is for the third reason – the fact that Heroes is a commercial, ratings and critical success on a major broadcast network – that Heroes is nominated for the Emmy. It isn't going to win, and I hate to say it but I doubt that if it is nominated next year when The Sopranos is gone and largely forgotten it will win an Emmy. It's a shame but I'm afraid that that's the way it is.

No new poll will be coming up shortly. I usually do a "which new show will be the first to be cancelled" poll but I have to figure out how to do that within the restrictions of Bravenet polling format and it may take a couple of days. I will be live-blogging the Emmys (like just about every other blogger who writes about TV), so drop by later tonight.

Not Short Takes

I'm not doing a Short Takes column this week. There are a couple of interesting things out there, but the PTC isn't outraged by anything new this time around and they're my meat and potatoes on this. Besides that I was doing a Garage Sale on Saturday. I hate Garage Sales – attending or holding – but it was either that or have a ton of my brother's stuff in my garage. It wasn't a roaring success but at least I've got a bit less stuff in there. Still I am tired in the aftermath. So, instead of a Short Takes piece, I think I'll respond to a couple of comments about last week's Short Takes.

The first comment is about Jim Shaw's attack on the Canadian Television Fund, and actually what we have are two responses related to the comment about "educational programming that offers instruction on the right and wrong way to host an S&M Bondage Party." First, my good friend Tim Gueguen writes, "Showcase has produced a number of sexually explicit shows over the years but I can't imagine any of them were ever classified as educational programming." After which Visaman wrote with a probable answer to the identity of the show: "That would be "KINK", it has been airing on Showcase for several years, it was the lead in to OZ. It was originally produced in Vancouver, then it moved to Toronto. I know people who know people who were on the show!" I think you're probably right. I know that the show was on Showcase and that it dealt with various types of sexual proclivities. I may even have seen bits and pieces of some episodes on IFC as I've been surfing through the digital channels. Not my cup of cocoa but it's an aspect of life and as a CBC report from May 2005 mentioned, "the truth is, every weekend is a dirty weekend on cable TV." The article spent a lot of time discussing Kink which they actually liked: "It should be noted that amid all this sawing and sighing, one Canadian specialty channel, Showcase, is providing an adult entertainment series that really is entertaining. The show is Kink, a documentary series that surveys unusual and varied sexual activity in Canadian cities. In past seasons, the series had done Vancouver, Montreal and Toronto. Starting this Friday, the filmmakers venture to Winnipeg, searching for the sexual extremes of "Canada's longitudinal centre." According to the article "This is erotica as imagined by smart NFB grads — not so much going down, but Goin' Down the Road." What isn't clear, either from the CBC article, or the show's website (or indeed from the Paperny Films website – they produce the show) is whether the show – which was nominated in 2006 for Best Documentary Series at the Yorkton Short Film and Video Festival (lost to The Nature Of Things) – is whether the show is still in production or if it ever got money from the CTF. Even if it did or does get funding for the CTF, I would hardly classify the series as "educational programming" unless you classify any documentary as educational programming, which I don't. A documentary can be made primarily to entertain.

The other comment I want to address comes from Andrew who does the blog One Man's Revolution. He writes: "Gee, I agree with you position on the PTC and "The Hills". I mean, only through the PTC's hypersensitive ears can they hear the vulgar language of that Justin dude. This simply makes the PTC look more foolish as times pass and the majority of American parents don't really care about them anymore.

(I agree with this statement particularly the part where you say "the majority of American parents don't really care about them anymore." The problem is that what they really are is a lobbying organization targeting advertisers and the FCC using the muscle of their "over one million members." Sadly, in the FCC in particular, is highly sensitive to complaints. The fine to KCSM in San Mateo over airing Martin Scorcese's The Blues: Godfathers and Sons was triggered by a single complaint.)

However, would you agree with the PTC that a recent rerun of CBS's "Cold Case" was misrated "TV-PG-DLV" for showing overtly explicit dialogue and wounded bodies?"

Andrew is referring to the PTC's Misrated column of August 31 which was in fact the one I was intending to do before they put up the Misrated on The Hills. The answer to your question is no, I don't agree with the PTC on this description. The descriptors are there to give parents some additional knowledge as to what they can expect from the show. The "D" refers to suggestive dialog, the "L" to strong language, and the "V" to violence. The amount or strength of the content related to that descriptor changes based on the actual rating – the "V" descriptor for TV-PG allows less than TV-14 and a lot less than TV-MA. Now my position is and has always been that the "V" descriptor applies – or should apply – almost entirely to actual depictions of violent acts. Seeing a dead body does not – in my opinion at least – constitute a violent act but rather evidence of a violent act. Put another way, when you see a man with a bruise on his jaw you are seeing the evidence of the violent act of him being punched in the jaw but you haven't seen an act of violence. Punching the man in the jaw is the violent act. Though I haven't seen the episode of Cold Case in question, I know enough about the show to know that there are actual acts of violence that occur but on the whole they tend to be acts of violence that fall within the PG level.

The example of overly explicit dialog in this episode is another point where I feel that the PTC is over reacting. To set the scene, the episode in question deals with a case where the father of a child who was sexually molested and murdered has been killed pedophiles. (TV.com has a detailed episode recap for the episode Offender.) Detectives Valens and Vera confront former postman Ernie Grabowski, a registered sex offender who is under house arrest. Here's what the PTC found objectionable:

Vera: "Better start explaining what the hell you were doing on that street delivering mail on a Sunday, Ernie."

Ernie says he sometimes delivered parcels on his days off, and that the address was on his way home.

Scotty: "Only back then you didn't have a record for diddling boys yet."

Ernie then tells the detectives that they can ask whatever questions they wish and put him through tests, but that he did not kill Clay because Clay "wasn't his type":

Ernie: "My preference was blonde-haired boys, ages 8-12, slight build, introverted. I was very specific."

Since the murdered boy in question did not match Ernie's "preferences," Vera sarcastically suggests that the detectives have the wrong suspect. Ernie states that, through therapy, he has learned to control his urge to have sex with young boys.

Ernie: "I love children. Guy who killed that boy was an amateur, worried about getting caught."

Vera: "An amateur?"

Ernie: "If a boy's properly groomed you don't worry about them telling anyone. They give you...consent."

Scotty: "Consent? A child can't give an adult consent!"

Ernie: "Someday society will come around to accept it."

Here's what the PTC says about the scene: "How can discussion of 'consensual' molestation and rape be appropriate for children – even with parental guidance? The TV-PG DLV rating given to this episode outrageously suggests that dialogue condoning the sexual assault of children is appropriate for children to hear!"

I agree that this dialog may be distasteful but it is reflective of what many child predators truly believe – indeed it is what NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association) advocates. The question that needs to be addressed in this case though is whether this dialog rises to a higher standard than the "D" descriptor for a TV-PG shows (D for suggestive dialogue (mature themes)) – to the level for a TV-14 rating (D for highly suggestive dialogue). In my opinion at least it clearly doesn't. It may reflect the inadequacies of the ratings system which doesn't take situations like this into account but in my view the dialog they cite doesn't meet the higher standard as the standard exists.

As far as "Parental Guidance" question goes, in my book "Parental Guidance" means knowing what your child can and can't handle in terms of content and deciding what shows your child is mature enough to handle. It also means watching with your children and when an issue like this comes up to talk with them about it. It's work, but guiding your child is a serious part of being a parent.

Wednesday, September 12, 2007

Short Takes – September 12, 2007

I confess that I came close to not doing even an abbreviated version of Short Takes this week. There wasn't that much that I was that enthusiastic about writing about beyond the ritual skewering of the PTC, and while that's fun, it isn't enough. There were stories – the apparent decision to put Doctor Who on hiatus for a year after the coming season because David Tennant wants to do Hamlet in the West End was one of those stories, but I just didn't have the fire in my belly to do it. Then something happened. I think I'll let the item in question explain itself.

Jim Shaw, arbiter of taste: If you live in Western Canada the odds are pretty good that you get your cable TV service from Shaw Cable. I get my Cable and Internet from Shaw, and I'll let you in on a dirty little secret – I don't hate my cable company. The service is usually up, the customer service in Saskatoon at least is good, and when you're given an afternoon appointment for a service call then by the gods the service guy shows up that afternoon. So I'm a pretty contented customer (except maybe for the rates but that's a part of this story). Now Management – in the form of company CEO Jim Shaw – well that's a whole other question.

On September 8th my local paper the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix and most of the other newspapers in Western Canada ran the following ad from Shaw, the company but it reflects the views of Shaw the man:

What does spending 2.5 Billion of your money to fund original Canadian TV programming get you?

(Not much. We were hoping you knew.)

The Canadian Television Fund was created to help promote and develop quality TV programming in Canada. But somewhere along the line, they lost their way. Firstly, they give the CBC a backdoor to $120 million each year. Secondly, instead of promoting the creation of better children's programming or developing a series based on the icons and the elements of our country that make Canada great, they pumped 2.5 billion dollars into shows about the dysfunctional residents of a mobile home park, shape shifting aliens with a grudge against the government and educational programming that.

At Shaw, we believe television should entertain, inform, inspire and make you think. We support the development of original Canadian programming that reflects this great country of ours. However this programming should be a lot more reflective of the audience that will ultimately watch it. We need a better way to create Canadian programming. The CTF is broken and can't be fixed.

This needs some background. Back in 1996 the Canadian Radio Television and Telecommunications Commission (the CRTC) established the Canadian Television Fund (CTF) to "support the production and broadcast of high quality, distinctively Canadian television programs." According to the CTF website their objectives are to "To encourage the financing and broadcasting of high-quality Canadian television productions; to reflect Canada to Canadians by assisting the creation and broadcast, in prime time, of high-quality, culturally significant Canadian programs in both official languages in the genres of drama, children's, documentaries and variety and performing arts, and by both majority and minority official-language sectors; and to support Aboriginal language productions in the eligible genres." According to CRTC regulations broadcasters are required to contribute 5% of their revenue to the fund. If I'm not mistaken, the cable company contributions were in return for relaxation of some regulatory requirements. According to a letter sent by Shaw to the CTF in January 2007 when he announced that his company would not be making its $56 million contribution to the fund for the year, "Over the past 10 years, Shaw has contributed over $350 million in direct subsidies to the Canadian production industry." And Jim Shaw is not happy with the programming that the CTF is funding.

Now it's no surprise that Shaw throws and off-handed comment about the CBC in there; Shaw comes from a corporate culture – the Canadian private broadcaster – that regards the CBC as a sort of amalgam of Satan and Stalin (evil incarnate and socialist). There's a whole history behind this but suffice it to say that the Canadian Association of Broadcasters has always wanted the CBC dead.

No it's the second part of his diatribe that is irritating (and mystifying because I can't identify two of the shows he mentions) is that Jim Shaw sets himself up as an arbiter of good taste. Trailer Park Boys (the show "about the dysfunctional residents of a mobile home park") doesn't match Shaw's standard of good taste and quality television and so shouldn't receive funding. As I mentioned, I can't identify the other two shows he describes, the one about the shape-shifting aliens and the one that "offers instruction on the right and wrong way to host an S&M Bondage Party." They may be inventions of his own mind or they may be shows that are funded and he is drawing some aspect of them into the cold hard light of his "critical" eye. Not knowing what they are, I can't tell you if they're good or bad shows. I also can't tell you if they're popular or how they do in the ratings. I do know that Trailer Park Boys is one of the great successes of Canadian cable TV. People know and enjoy the characters to the point where the actors can make appearances on other networks (the CBC) as hosts of events and people know them. To me that's successful TV. Worse is that Jim Shaw doesn't suggest an alternative beyond a vaguely defined request for "better children's programming or developing a series based on the icons and the elements of our country that make Canada great" to go along side his equally ill-defined comments about the quality of the programming that is funded.

Now I get people like the PTC. I know what they stand for and (mostly) against in terms of programming. They don't like sex, violence, and bad language. I don't agree with their definitions or thresholds for objectionable material – I think they are far too strict in every area, at every time period, and in every venue – but at least I know what they stand for. I don't get that with Jim Shaw. All I get from him is an echo of the US Supreme Court Justice who said that he couldn't define pornography but he knew what it was when he saw it. Shaw hasn't defined what a show that should be funded would be but he knows what it isn't when he sees it.

I don't object to Jim Shaw expressing an opinion about shows. Everybody does it all the time. But Shaw is a man with power – green power and I'm not talking eco-friendly here (okay so Canadian money isn't green, work with me on this one). A critic – especially an amateur critic like myself – doesn't have power beyond the power to tell people our opinion and trying to use our words to persuade them to watch or not watch particular shows. Jim Shaw is expressing an opinion about the shows he thinks should be funded and I defend to the death his right to express this opinion. But he's doing more than that and that's where he's crossing the line. He's saying in effect "fund the sort of shows that I think should be funded or you don't get my $56 million." I'm not a lawyer, but that sounds like extortion. Or is it reverse blackmail? And it's the way he puts it in the ad, a way that generates an emotional response: "What does spending 2.5 Billion of your money to fund original Canadian TV programming get you?" It makes it seem as though all the money that is going into the fund is coming directly from the taxpayer, and we all know that the taxpayer hates to fund things without getting some direct benefit. Of course what he's not mentioning is that that money stopped being ours when we paid it to Shaw Cable as part of our cable bill. And don't believe for a minute that if the CTF didn't exist your cable bill would go down by the per capita amount that would make up the $56 million.

To be fair to Jim Shaw, Shaw Communications has been a major funder of quality children's programming through their Shaw Rocket Fund which between 1998 and 2006 has spent $58.3 million to help produce quality children's programming, and presumably that has standards to define "quality." What I find objectionable is that Shaw is attempting to use his company's contribution to the CTF – which as far as I can tell is not voluntary but required as part of his license – to get the CTF to change their policy. And it's the question of whether the contribution is require that may trip him up. There are policies of Shaw Cable's that I disagree with – for example at the inception of the premium digital channels in 2001 the company decided which channels would be offered to its subscribers in a completely arbitrary manner. If I were to protest Shaw's policy on this by refusing to pay my cable bill but insisting that they continue to provide me with service, how far would I get? The answer is not very far at all – my cable service would be cancelled faster than it takes to type it. Actions have consequences, and Jim Shaw's action in not making his required payment to the Canadian Television Fund – for which he gets benefits – needs to have consequences.

Who does the PTC hate this week?: As I said above, I get where the PTC is coming from even if I don't agree with their position or their logic. But it does make studies like the recent one they released on content during the "Family Hour" suspect. Set aside the fact that the "Family Hour" as such hasn't existed for over a quarter century, having been thrown out by the courts as an arbitrary use of power by the FCC, the fact that the PTC defines an act of violence as showing a dead body, considers words like "damn" and "crap" as foul language, and counts verbal references to adultery as sexual content means that the results of this study are inflated to say the least. Still the PTC claims that TV is going to H E double hockey sticks and dragging us all with it: "Our study clearly demonstrates that corporate interests have hijacked the Family Hour from families. This early prime time block was once reserved for programs the whole family could enjoy but it is now flooded with shows that contain adult programming. The Family Hour was once lauded by the entertainment industry and members of Congress as a solution for parents who do not want their children to be exposed to graphic content for at least one hour each night. Shockingly, this data shows that parents cannot trust what is on during the so-called Family Hour for even a minute." When they find that "in 180 hours of original programming, there were 2,246 instances of objectionable violent, profane and sexual content, or 12.48 instances per television hour," though, any validity the study might have is significantly eroded by the organization's definition of violent, profane and sexual content, definitions which may only be shared by the more extreme of the social conservative groups that support the PTC. And here's a question to consider, when exactly was it that Congress and the entertainment industry lauded the Family Hour as "a solution for parents who do not want their children to be exposed to graphic content?" Not recently I suspect.

Onto the PTC's Broadcast Worst of the Week and the organization continues in reruns, this time attacking Heroes for an episode that originally aired back in late November 2006 (at a time when the PTC wasn't doing new reviews; I suspect they were mourning the loss of a Republican Congress during the midterm elections). Their vision of the show doesn't seem to be in agreement with any of the episodes that I've seen: "While Heroes is marketed as a show about super-powered do-gooders and their quest to save the world, it is hard to find that theme in the typical episode." Uh, no it isn't about that at all. In the first season at least Heroes was about ordinary people suddenly discovering that they have extra-ordinary abilities and trying to cope with those abilities. About the only character who was really determined to be a "super-powered do-gooder" was Hiro. The rest of the characters were at the very least ambiguous about their motivations. Not unlike comic book characters have been since the 1970s – the early 1970s (heaven alone knows what they'd think of Roy Harper – Speedy – and his heroin addiction). Here's another gem which shows the PTC's incredibly harsh definitions: "Graphic violence involving fights, guns, bladed weapons, blood, burns, and death are commonplace on Heroes." So are the guns and bladed weapons "graphic violence" or is their use – that sentence doesn't entirely make it clear. Context doesn't matter either: "This week's episode featured Niki attacking her estranged father and beating him into submission." Context does not enter into the PTC's consideration – Niki, has at least one other personality (Jessica) as a result of being physically abused as a child by her father and it is Jessica (the strong personality) who beats her father into submission after the father yells at Niki's son. But as I say, for the PTC motivation and character development don't matter.

The Cable Worst of the Week is the PTC's perpetual target Rescue Me. The Council must be going soft – all they can find to comment on is Tommy's promiscuity ("the August 29th episode features Tommy having sexual relations with two different women. In one scene, Tommy is shown sitting naked in a chair talking to Valerie after a brief sexual encounter") and a bit of dialog that happens after Tommy tries to grope the fire chief's daughter Beth: "My parents always want me to go back on [her medications]. Because they're always worried if I go off it that I'm going to snap and try to, you know, run into the room where they're sleeping and stab their eyeballs out with an ice pick or rip their chest out and then bury it in the backyard next to my ovaries. Why'd you take your hand away?" Before their usual final sentence decrying the fact that basic cable subscribers have to "subsidize" this filth (even though it airs at a time when children, the group that the PTC is supposedly protecting, aren't watching) they add this bit of artistic criticism: "Rescue Me continues its tradition of graphic content matched to superficial character analysis, mocking everything from monogamy to manic-depression. For a show that prides itself in exploring the human psyche in all its dysfunctional glory, this episode seemed only to mock real-life tragedies for a cheap laugh." Clearly they just don't get what this show is about.

In the PTC's Misrated section this week we find The Hills, which is MTV's self-described "reality drama" an intern working at Teen Vogue and her friends. The episode is rated TV-PG with no descriptors, and the objection seems to be concerned with a single scene: "Justin: "Who [muted 'fucking'] cares? Why do they [muted 'fucking'] care? It actually pisses me off. Because when something's working you don't [muted 'fuck'] it up by throwing labels or doing stupid [muted 'shit'] like throwing a ring on your finger. Because society or friends said so. So you know what? [Muted 'Fuck'] them. Literally. I don't give a [muted 'shit']." Although the words aren't bleeped and the mouth of the person saying them isn't blurred they also aren't heard either. Moreover, in the past the PTC has objected strenuously when those particular words have been bleeped and the lips were blurred because the words weren't bleeped to their standards. And yet, despite the fact that if you read the first sentence of the PTC's version of the dialog aloud (complete with the words in the square brackets) you'd have heard more "bad words" than in the actual transmission of the episode, the PTC feels that it requires at least a descriptor and probably a higher rating. Or as they put it, "Wow. In mere seconds, viewers are subjected to four muted 'f' words, two muted 's' words, one "piss" – and the ratings never reflected that. The entertainment industry wants consumers to believe that the ratings system works, but clearly there was nothing correct about the rating for this episode of The Hills." But here's the real question: how can you justify putting an "L" descriptor on a show for strong language when the words in question were only present in one's imagination. The context is clear but the words are taken out. It's not like taking the words "son of a bitch" out and replacing them (badly) with "scumbum" (as was done in Smokey And The Bandit when it was redubbed for TV) but it does the job.

Monday, September 10, 2007

New Poll – What Show Should Win The Emmy For Outstanding Drama?

Our final Emmy Poll, after which I'll have to find something else to poll about. As usual, please vote for the show you think should win, rather than the one you believe the Academy will give the Emmy to. Please feel free to comment in this post on why you voted as you did.

Poll closes on September 16, which just happens to be Emmy Day.

Poll Results - What Show Should Win The Emmy For Outstanding Comedy?

We have a result for the penultimate Emmy poll of the season and on one thing they're pretty clear: people (or rather the people who voted in this poll) like NBC's comedies. Cappy's comment (American Dad) wasn't entirely helpful, because if I put in a "none of the above" category I suspect it would win every time. (The TV Academy doesn't consider animated shows like The Simpsons or American Dad to be "comedies." They are lumped into the "Outstanding Animated Program" category at the Creative Arts Emmys. The Simpsons lost to an episode of South Park but was up against shows like Robot Chicken, SpongeBob SquarePants and Avatar: The Last Airbender.) There were twenty four votes cast. In fifth place, with no votes, is Entourage. In fourth place, with two votes (8%) is Ugly Betty. In third place, with three votes (13%) is Two And A Half Men. In second place, with eight votes (33%) is 30 Rock, but the winner, with eleven votes (46%) is The Office.

The vote – or lack thereof – for Entourage probably reflects both the antipathy that people reading this blog have for cable shows and possibly the feeling, expressed by a lot of reviewers, that the current season of the show is a disappointment and just not as funny as previous seasons. I'm not sure about the result for Ugly Betty. Does the hour-long format hurt it in this group? Is it that the show can sometimes be edge toward being a "dramedy?" Or is it perhaps that the subject matter – the fashion industry – doesn't appeal? Certainly I expected the show to get more votes than Two And A Half Men, but then I expect most shows to do better than Two And A Half Men. I always have the sense that it gets nominated at least primarily because it is wildly successful in the ratings and the nomination is a sop towards commercial success.

Which brings us to the two power hitters in this race, 30 Rock and The Office. Earlier in the month, Ken Levine had a piece in his blog called Stop the hearse! The Sitcom is NOT dead in which he makes the rather compelling argument that the sitcom has certain key advantages for a network – they're cheaper than dramas, they syndicate far better than dramas, and do very well in DVD release. He does stated that "I would amend Sam's statement and say that yeah, the bad, stale, family sitcom with tired rhythms, forced laughs, and bogus characters is dead. I would also add – thank goodness. But the genre perseveres." And he's right; 30 Rock and The Office are proof. The two shows, which ran neck and neck throughout the polling are light-years away from shows like According To Jim (which has inexplicably been renewed for another season after initially being left off ABC's schedule) or most of last season's failed comedies (I admit to having a soft spot for In Case Of Emergency but agree that with its basic premise it could have been so much better). What 30 Rock and The Office both have is superior acting and writing. While the characters on 30 Rock are largely caricatures (but only in the sense that various traits are exaggerated for comedic effect) they have their own sense of internal reality. On the other hand The Office has a very strong grounding in a reality that a lot of people can relate to. Everyone knows a boss like Michael Scott who is thoroughly oblivious to what his underlings really think about him, just as they know the sort of people who work at jobs they don't really like and are filling time for those blessed hours when they aren't working. I personally think that either show is likely to win – and is worthy – but I'll give an ever so slight edge to 30 Rock because it's new and everybody voting knows these characters (and probably don't think that they're exaggerated at all).

Final Emmy poll will be up shortly.

Sunday, September 09, 2007

New Post In My Other Blog

I have a news post up in The Good Old Days Weren't So Bad. It's what I'm calling a Snapshot, in this case of the way things were back on an ordinary Saturday in January 1963.

TV on DVD – September 4, 2007

I'm late in starting this again, and will probably be late in getting it done. I'm not really sure why I didn't start on this sooner but I didn't. As always, the list is from TVShowsOnDVD.com while the commentary is entirely mine.

My Pick of the Week
30 Rock: Season 1
30 Rock: Season 1, Vol. 1
30 Rock: Season 1, Vol. 2

Well, actually it's just the full set. I don't get the marketing logic behind offering a Volume 1 and a Volume 2 as well as a complete set but then that's why I'm not a DVD marketing hoodlum – sorry, executive. There were actually a couple of solid picks from this list but I'm going with 30 Rock for a couple of good reasons. First of course is that it has the great Alec Baldwin playing off of Tina Fey. The show is genuinely funny, even with the presence of Tracy Morgan (sorry can't get into him or his character).Then too there's the fact that the show hasn't had the best ratings despite the critical buzz that the series has had since it debuted. I want to believe that people have been holding back from watching this show because they were afraid that the show would be cancelled. With the change at the top of NBC Entertainment (when Kevin Reilly fell on his sword for Jeff Zucker's mistakes) I am worried that this show, like Friday Night Lights, might be on the chopping block if the ratings don't improve unless there's an indication that there's support – The Office survived because of iTunes downloads, and a successful DVD release for 30 Rock – particularly if it translates into improved ratings for the show.

And now for the rest of the week's DVDs:

The Black Donnellys: The Complete Series
It used to be that when a series tanked that was the end of it. These days unless the show dies after a couple of episodes it shows up on the shelves as a DVD release. And while I doubt that we'll ever see a DVD release of shows like Smith (with Ray Liotta) or 3 Lbs. (with Stanley Tucci) neither of which lasted more than two or three episodes, we are seeing shows that were cancelled quickly making an almost ghostly comeback as DVDs. The Black Donnellys probably only made it onto NBC because it was created by Oscar winning writer/director Paul Haggis. As I said at the time broadcast network television was probably the wrong place for this show about a family of largely incompetent Irish crooks. If it had been on a cable channel, free – or at least freer – of the restrictions on language violence and sex that come with being on broadcast TV it might well have prospered. As it was, the show developed a small cult following, however I wouldn't expect the series to set any DVD sales records. That's kind of unfortunate because, despite the fact that I found the episode that I watched to drag a bit, on the whole it was a well done show that deserved to find a bigger audience.

Bosom Buddies: Season 2
Whatever happened to Peter Scolari? Bosom Buddies was the show that made Tom Hanks a star but the equally talented Scolari never had the same sort of success. The central premise – two men dressing as women to live in a women's only hotel and having to maintain their secret to stay there – was to a degree discarded in the second season, with two major characters (Kip's girlfriend Sonny and new hotel manager Isabelle) learning of the secret. A fondly remembered series (but not by me – I never watched it).

The Best of Cheaters, Vol. 2: Too Hot for TV
I have so little to say about this that it's ridiculous. My biggest question is this: what kind of person signs a release to air his or her dirty laundry – the suspicion that their husband, wife, boyfriend, or girlfriend is cheating on them – in public? Actually I have an even bigger question – what kind of person signs a release to allow their image to be used on this show if they're the ones who are actually cheating?

Desperate Housewives: The Complete Third Season
Okay, I've got to ask; what sets the "Dirty Laundry" edition of Desperate Housewives apart from what might be called the "ordinary" edition? I mean besides the fact that they aren't actually issuing a regular edition. It's pretty much accepted wisdom that the second season of Desperate Housewives was quite a come down from the first season, with the mystery surrounding the Applewhites not really living up to the first season's drama and intrigue. Season Three was a bit of an improvement but in my opinion the show didn't get back to the heights of the first season. Sure there were nice touches – I have to admit to laughing when Bree has her first ever orgasm, not to mention the way that Lynette got Kayla out of the ice cream parlour – but there were some dreary bits as well. I thought the whole Ian vs. Mike thing went on far too long and was reminiscent of another Terri Hatcher entanglement, the long engagement of Lois Lane and Clark Kent on Lois and Clark. As for Lynette she became the show's soap opera queen, dealing with her husband's ex-lover (who was shot) and illegitimate daugther, then a romantic entanglement of her own which wasn't consummated but which Tom thought might have been, and culminating with cancer. And for this Felicity Huffman was nominated for an Emmy for best actress in a Comedy?!

Dirty Jobs Collection, Vol. 1
I don't think I've ever seen this one, but reading the description on Wikipedia makes the whole concept seem fascinating. Host Mike Rowe goes out and does the jobs that most of us wouldn't try on a dare; things like septic tank cleaner, bat guano collector, baby chicken sexer, or tire recycler. The jobs are "dirty"in a variety of ways and Rowe apparently makes jokes about them, but almost never about the people who do the jobs. As Rowe puts it, "I explore the country looking for people who aren't afraid to get dirty—hard-working men and women who earn an honest living doing the kinds of jobs that make civilized life possible for the rest of us."

Falcon Beach: Complete First Season
One of the annoying things about getting attached to a TV show on Canadian TV – okay mostly a show on Global – is that their shows seem to be highly reliant on being an international co-production. Falcon Beach was a show like that. The show was a partnership between Global and the teen-oriented ABC Family cable channel. When ABC Family cancelled the show after the second season, Global offered the producers "a lot less money" to do a third season which was basically the kiss of death to the show, despite healthy international sales. The show was set at the summer resort of Falcon Beach, but where Falcon Beach was depended on whether you were watching Global (where it was on Manitoba's Lake Winnipeg – the actual town the producers used was Manitoba Beach) or ABC Family (where the town was somewhere in New England). In fact two versions were actually filmed, one with Canadian references and one with American. While it's not absolutely clear it seems likely that the DVD set, which is released by Fremantle Media, will feature the ABC Family version.

Garfield: Dreams and Schemes
Garfield: Dreams and Schemes (with toy)

A fairly standard Garfield release, and even though I loved the character when it started (way back when it was an original idea) and I'm a fan of Mark Evanier who was heavily involved in the creation of the TV series, I really can't muster up that much enthusiasm for the standard Garfield release. If you can, get the one with the little "Pooky" toy, Garfield's favourite. It's the same price as the DVD without the doll and let's face it, the thing is cute.

Gumby Essentials
One of the many shows I never saw as a kid living in a one TV station town was Gumby. Oh I had a vague understanding of the character; I'd see him and Pokey in the toy department of Woolworth's downtown, but as far as knowing what he was about, I was clueless. I think I may have thought that he was a British character or maybe something like those weird cartoons the CBC would sometimes show from Czechoslovakia. On this DVD are fifteen Gumby episodes, five each from the 1950s, '60s and '80s, as well as some bonus material. Are they really essentials? Well, sadly, I wouldn't know.

Hetty Wainthropp Investigates: The Complete Collection
Patricia Routledge will probably always be known for playing Hyaicnth Bucket (pronounced Bouquet) in Keeping Up Appearances but she should at least be noticed for playing Hetty Wainthropp, housewife and private investigator in this series. When it comes to complete series sets, my usual rule is that if you haven't already bought sets from the series before and the contents are the same you should look to see which alternative is cheapest. This set is an absolute bargain coming in at about half of what it would cost to buy the four sets separately. Definitely worth the price.

It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia: Seasons 1&2
I have never seen this series, but every review and plot summary that I've read – invariably raves – convinces me that if I saw it I'd probably hate it. The characters all sound like they're on the unlikable side and even in a comedy I think I really need to have at least some sympathy for the lead characters. But given that I haven't seen it, who am I to judge?

Man vs. Wild
In the realm of TV shows that you think you can describe without resorting to Wikipedia – at least not immediately – comes Man vs. Wild. Now given the current abhorence of hunting, it's obviously not a show about going out and hunting, so my guess is that it's a show about surviving in the great outdoors, probably in a variety of loctions. And sure enough I'm right. Ah but there's more. Apparently this show, which originated on Britain's Channel 4 and is seen in the United States (and probably Canada) on the Discovery Channel, has been accused of various bits of staging for host "survival expert" Bear Grylls the least of which was sleeping in a motel when he claimed he was living in the wilderness. A complete listing of the controversies surrounding the show can be found in the show's Wikipedia article.

Nip/Tuck: The Complete Fourth Season
Nip/Tuck: Season 4 [Blu-ray]
Nip/Tuck: Season 4 [HD DVD]

One of the PTC's favourite targets for complaints about sex and violence – mostly sex. The show does have a high content of sex in some rather bizarre contexts. Season 4 featured one of the lead characters, Christian having several affairs including one with the wife of the new owner of his plastic surgery practice while her husband watches them. There's also organ theft and various other machinations. As I said, the show has been a frequent target of the PTC despite airing on a cable network – FX – carrying suitable warnings, and airing at a late hour. In Canada the show airs is broadcast over the air by CTV, apparently with few if any complaints. The show is one of the most popular shows on basic cable. In his Spetember 8, 2006 Programming Insider column for Mediaweek, Marc Berman wrote of the Season 4 debut, "Nip/Tuck's performance among adults 18-49 ranks as basic cable's top-rated season-premiere in the demo for 2006, as of September 8, 2006." No wonder the PTC hates it.

The Office: Season Three
If it weren't for the debut on DVD of 30 Rock, this would undoubtedly be my pick of the week. The Office is a show full of fascinating characters even roles which most series would designate as throwaways. Moreover most of the main characters have a sympathetic side. Michael (Steve Carrell) may be a complete and total ass who is oblivious to what people really think about him, but even he has moments when you sort of feel for him. The Season 3 DVD shows slow progress in the relationship between Jim and Pam even as complications are added – Jim left Scranton for Stamford Connecticut only to return when that branch closed down and brought an added complication in Karen the girl he had been starting a relationship with at that office. In a sitcom landscape all too often filled with "buddy shows" and husbands and wives who don't fit together, The Office – a show about people living what must be described as lives of quiet desperation – is different and deserving of its success.

Prison Break: Season 2
I bailed on Prison Break part way through Season 1, largely because it was on Monday night when I bowl and it just didn't seem worth the bother. After all, what could they do once they break out of the prison? As it turned out there was quite a lot they could do – I still wasn't watching the show but I did read the various episode recaps. Much of it was centered on uncovering the conspiracy that put Lincoln Burrows in prison but also the whole mechanics of being on the run. The show managed to maintain a dramatic tension despite spreading the cast far and wide. I'm not entirely convinced that the plot holds together in terms of logic, but this is drama and drama insists on the willing suspension of disbelief, something which viewers are perfectly willing to do for this show.

The Real Housewives of Orange County: Season One
I'm sure that this show is been available in Canada, but for the life of me I can't come up with a reason for wanting to watch it. The show is a reality show about five women living in a gated community in California's Orange County, their lives and relationships. The reference is to The O.C. but the show could probably just as easily be called "Real Desperate Housewives" but it also reminds me of that truly abominable CBS reality show Tuesday Night Book Club. I know why that show failed dismally after two episodes; what I can't figure out is why this show thrives for two seasons and is renewed for a third (but with a new cast) and gets a DVD box set.

Robot Chicken: Season Two
Robot Chicken is one of the little joys of life provided courtesy of the remote control. See I rarely see this show from the beginning but usually come upon it when I'm listlessly surfing channels to find a show to watch. The show is a morsel – usually ten to fifteen minutes of outrageous comedic goodness. It has the twin hooks of an amazing list of guest voice artists – the list in the show's Wikipedia entry features well over a hundred different actors – and stop motion animation done with action figures. The show is usually a series of blackout skits that rarely last more than a minute. And it is hilarious.

Rules of Engagement: The Complete First Season
In the list of last season's new sitcoms Rules Of Engagement wasn't the worst. The problem is that it just wasn't that great either. And in a week that includes the release of season two of Robot Chicken, season three of The Office, and the first season of 30 Rock I can't see this one flying off of store shelves except maybe as a result of being knocked off by people trying to get the good stuff.

She-Ra Princess of Power: Season 2
I tend to look at animated TV series with a bit of a jaundiced eye. I grew up watching Bugs Bunny, Tom & Jerry, Woody Woodpecker as well as the early Hanna-Barbera and so I like to think that I've got an eye for quality animation. She-Ra: Princess of Power was produced by Filmation in association with Mattel which produced the He-Man and She-Ra line of toys, and I have a hard time seeing anything beyond the usually terrible limited animation that Filmation put out. I'm told that Filmation made an effort to make their stories strong, and I did see that in the Star Trek animated series they did, but it is still hard getting over the animation. It doesn't help, in my mind that the two series were essentially toy commercials and that She-Ra was essentially created to open the action figure market to girls – He-Man rode a tiger while She-Ra rode a horse, presumably because girls like horses. The series – and the toy line – died after two years, but a lot of people have strong and good memories of the character and the series. If you do, then you can overlook the crappy animation and are the market for this show; I'm not and I can't.

Spongebob Squarepants: Season 5, Vol. 1
Not my coup of tea, but SpongeBob seems to have developed a following beyond what I would expect it too. My recently acquired grumpy old fart nature probably keeps me from seeing its charms. But my four year-old nephew probably likes it and that, in and of itself, validates it for me.