Cathode Radiation

Up Shat's Creek

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Frasier) — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 16:02:00 +0000

If you haven't seen it yet, make sure you check out Shatner's Raw Nerve Tuesday nights on the Biography Channel. Unfortunately, I missed the first couple episodes - hopefully I can find them online - but was lucky enough to catch Bill's interview with Kelsey Grammer last night.

What makes this show good is how different it is from the regular glut of talk shows we are used to. There's no live audience, no stupid banter about how great their newest project is or how wonderful it was to work with so and so. It's a genuine conversation in which both - repeat both - participants are interested and willing to talk about interesting personal aspects of their lives. It makes for an extremely compelling and engrossing half-hour.

Would You Buy Mulch From This Man? Jack Donaghy, Yes; Jack Bauer, No.

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Frasier) — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 18:15:00 +0000

If you saw 30 Rock last night, then you saw not only the best episode of the season, but a quintessential example of everything that makes this show great when it clicks. The story was terrific - what a great idea to take someone who thought she was a dork in high school and have it turn out that she was the snob; it actually made me consider reassessing my own high school experience - the dialogue was quick and more natural than it has been this season, and the characters finally had room to be themselves after three weeks of making room for the the guest stars. As soon as last night's episode was over I wanted to watch it again.

Unfortunately, I can't say the same for 24:Redemption, which I finally got around to watching over the weekend, and afterwards found myself wishing I had instead spent the time raking up yet another pile of leaves. Note: there are no more leaves left, but I would have found some to rake if it meant I could have missed this piece of junk.

The first 45 minutes were downright boring, I had no interest in the plot regarding the fake African country's coup, the pseudo-attempt at understanding Jack's motives, or the palace intrigue going on at the White House - is it just me or do you find it tiresome that every administration in the 24 universe is filled with some sort of MacBeth/Lex Luthor-wanna-be megalomaniac?

This show has relied on the same formula for too long and that's what killed seasons 5 and 6. So I was happy to see some promising developments in the preview for the upcoming season. I like the idea of CTU having been disbanded and Jack working in a new environment. I was happy that is until they introduced Tony Almeida as the new season's arch-villain. We saw the man die on the CTU medical center table in season 5. So unless President Logan spun a frozen donkey wheel and moved CTU back in time, this premise is ridiculous. As is the fact that I will probably still tune in to watch the season premiere.

30 Rock's Third Season or Planes, F-Trains, and Automobiles

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Frasier) — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 18:33:00 +0000

So we're three weeks into 30 Rock's new season, and while I still love this show, I'm feeling that so far this may be it's weakest season. Perhaps it's a result of Tina Fey having been distracted with her Sarah Palin duties on SNL during the filming of these first few episodes, but something is slightly off somewhere. One thing I've noticed is that while I'm a huge fan of the understated joke, there have been a few instances this season where the humor has been almost too subtle - I'm still trying to figure out what I'm missing about the "crazy putty" joke from last night's episode (oh wait...I think I just got it). More than that though, it almost feels as if there is too much story each week for what boils down to 20 minutes after commercials, and as a result we're ending up with episodes that just don't flow quite right.

Last night's episode is a good example, in that the main story - which was admittedly less than original - focused on Lemon's crazy friend Claire (Jennifer Aniston) falling in lust with Lemon's other crazy friend Jack. Meanwhile, Kenneth and Tracy tried filming the never-shot Night Court finale with the original stars of that series. That's a huge subplot, and one that several times threatened to overshadow the main story line of the episode. Add to that the fact that it was the second week in a row with a big-name cameo (Oprah was on last week; Steve Martin will be next) and it just feels like they might be trying a little too hard; it's no secret that the show gets high marks from critics, but usually suffers in the ratings. Ironically, the tactics they're using to draw in new viewers takes away from what makes the show great and therefore makes it harder to keep those new viewers watching anyway. I have loads of theories about why ratings shouldn't really matter anymore anyway, but that's for another day.

Everything great about this show is still in place, especially the writing. And they've done the guest-star bit several times in the past to wonderful effect (see Carrie Fischer's turn as Liz's demented mentor from season two). There just seems to be a slight problem with execution. Hopefully, now that we've put Gov. Palin behind us Tina can sharpen the focus on our view of the chaos that is Liz Lemon's life.

Help Me Obi-Wolf, You're My Only Hope!

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Frasier) — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 19:16:00 +0000

There I was enjoying my self-imposed exile from the blogosphere when I was suddenly drawn out of retirement by a disturbance in the force.

Even though they still haven’t quite perfected the whole “live-via-satellite” routine, CNN thought it would somehow be worthwhile to pioneer the correspondent-in-studio-via-hologram-technique. That’s right, CNN has created, for our viewing pleasure, a real live 3D representation of a person that we can watch on TV! Don't tell the folks in the graphics department, but the people who are actually in the studio are also technically in 3D, we just can't tell at home because we’re WATCHING THEM ON TELEVISION! Now if CNN could beam Campbell Brown into my living room for a rundown of the day’s events, that'd be a different story - and something I could really get behind. But alas, we are stuck with an awkward Star Wars rip-off, and one poorly executed at that. They didn’t even bother to put an R2-D2 doll next to Wolf Blitzer, who I believe has attained the rank of Jedi Master after having been successful at controlling all the monitors in the situation room with only his mind.

CNN Correspondent Jessica Yellin - later followed by someone named Wil.i.am (who may or may not be related to the Green Eggs and Ham kid) - was beamed onto the set a la Star Trek, with the glaring exception that in Star Trek they beamed the actual person to their destination not just a grainy, blue-hazy image of him or her. They then pretty much skipped any reporting that could have been done to explain how the process works - the person is put into a green screen tent surrounded by dozens of HD cameras – as well how this format would be helpful in reducing crowd noise from whatever event the reporter might be covering; in this case the Obama celebration in Grant Park. Apparently no one in accounting was consulted, because they almost definitely would have suggested simply moving Yellin a few feet away from the crowd and giving her a better microphone.

CNN wasn’t the only network beaming with pride over its ability to use technology in completely pointless ways. NBC trapped Ann Curry in a green screen pit so that they could have her walk around in what looked like a mini-Jefferson Memorial, lurking behind the charts and graphs detailing the exit poll results. It might have been more useful to demonstrate Obama's overwhelming electoral victory if each time he won a state one of those columns collapsed on Ann Curry's head. That would have had some cache.

I’d be OK with them using these virtual reality techniques if they actually added something to the reporting, but if they’re going to drum up these detailed sets just to show me the same graphics they could with an overhead projector than they should save their money. If the economy keeps going the way it has been, they’re going to need it.

ESPN Rex: The Worldwide Leader in Eye-Gouging Viewers

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Frasier) — Wed, 08 Aug 2007 17:42:00 +0000

While trying to watch ESPN's coverage of Barry Bond's triumph over AT&T Park's shallow right-field wall, I couldn't help but think back to an article I meant to comment on a couple weeks ago. Newsweek ran a piece questioning ESPN's journalistic integrity in light of its increasing coziness with the professional sports leagues and their various members. I thought the article was pretty fair and, for me at least, it really touched on a number of things that have led me to all but banish the worldwide sports leader from my favorite channel roster. I'll still tune in for the occasional baseball game or special event, but most of what the boys (and girls) of Bristol U are selling, I'm not buying. (The obvious exception of course being Mike in Mike in the Morning, but that's really a radio show with a video feed.)

I've totally given up on SportsCenter, especially after this morning's tired exercise. What used to be an entertaining box-score rundown has, over the past six or seven years, turned into an athletics-based Access Hollywood, focusing less on the games and more on the athletes, providing viewers with rumor, innuendo, way too many "anonymous sources" and details I don't care about. Not only that, but it's obvious the producers are pushing it towards the MTV demographic. I personally can wait to see what story is coming up next, I don't need the "helpful" rundown on the side distracting me further from the program's main content along with the scrolling banner and unnecessarily loud (perhaps just plain unnecessary?) background music. I'm obviously no longer the type of viewer SportsCenter is courting, so I will bid them adieu and get my scores from the web.

The same goes for other past favorites like Baseball Tonight. I think Devin Gordon (author of the Newsweek piece) is spot-on when he maintains that the network relies far too heavily on "underqualified ex-jocks to fill its analyst ranks". We're not talking about public policy or anything else that really requires open debate, so why do I need to listen to not just one, but several second-string athletes "break things down" and argue their points with excruciating redundancy and little added insight?

I like to mark the network's downfall from the moment they did that live behind-the-scenes SportsCenter broadcast a few years back. While it was an interesting and enlightening event, it really did, on a certain level, display the hubris of the network as well as the the runners of it's flagship show. This was an organization at the top of its game, one that had recently become a pop-culture icon. These guys were cool and they knew it. That always spells trouble. Since that broadcast it feels like everything at ESPN has been done for the sake of cool, thus substance has suffered and in my opinion at least, things have been trending downward, like they do for the star of any Greek tragedy when his waistline begins to exceed the dimensions of his britches. If that is in fact what they wear under those togas.

"I Get Good Advice From The Advertising World"

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Frasier) — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 00:04:00 +0000

A while back I commented on what I thought - or rather, think - is the somewhat misguided fear on the part of advertisers toward DVRs. I mentioned that I am more apt to watch commercials while watching a recorded program than I am while watching live TV. While fast-forwarding through ads I often stop and go back to watch those that are able to catch my eye. When an ad break comes on during live programming however, I simply change the channel until my well- honed commercialometer tells me my original show is back.

Those times when I do pull a u-turn, it is often to catch a trailer for a film I'm interested in or starring an actor I like. Turns out I'm not alone. There is now data that suggests that quite a few viewers do the same thing.

The data comes from TiVo, who is now measuring what commercials are viewed - both in live and time-shifted contexts - and how often. Since it only measures it's own users, not the rest of us DVR lovers who get our equipment from the local cable company, it's safe to assume the actual numbers are even greater.

While some might grimace at the prospect of commercial ratings, TV the way we know and love it cannot exist without subsidies from advertisers. Some people may consider it a necessary evil, I consider it just plain necessary. Thus, I think anything that will keep advertisers calm and pumping money into my primary vice is OK. Besides, as the article tagged above states: "In some cases, according to the data, commercials score higher ratings than do the shows they are on."

P.S. Guess the song from which the title of this post comes and you will win....well, nothing actually, I'll just be impressed.

Emmy Reading This Correctly?

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Frasier) — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 14:25:00 +0000

I'm not sure anything I've watched during the past season toyed with my emotions the way reading this year's list of Emmy nominees did earlier today. It was like my brain was playing Twister with me, calling out one new color after another before I could possibly get my left hand on green.

First there was anticipation: would Lost - after last year's snub - get its due this year with a nomination for Outstanding Drama? Then there was curiosity: there's an Outstanding Choreography category? That was followed by a sense of 'who knew?': there's an Outstanding Commercial category. Next there was self-doubt: "Am I reading this correctly? I must have missed the mentions of Planet Earth." (I did, it picked up 7 nominations). Then the fireworks began, starting with a feeling of satisfaction: 10 nominations for 30 Rock, 9 for The Office; which quickly turned into tempered indignation: Lost getting only 4 nods, but in the right categories and for the right reasons; and finally downright contempt when, after I finished the list, I realized Elizabeth Mitchell's name was nowhere to be found.

Now, I'm grounded enough to know that none of this is really that important. After all, more often than not its nothing more than self-congratulatory Hollywood nonsense. But the same could be said of any industry's awards. Does anyone outside the field really care who the best plumbing supplier in greater Montpelier is in any given year? No, but the pipe pushers in Vermont do, and while I don't get to see how good those guys are at hawking hose I do spend an inordinate amount of time watching television. I have some favorite shows - and guilty pleasures - as well as some absolute must-not-watchers (Grey's Anatomy) and I am able to recognize quality work when it is put in front of me. In that context, I don't feel so ridiculous in my reactions to this morning's announcement.

A second look at the nominees reveals some well deserved recognition as well as some head-scratchers. Among the highlights and lowlights:

It was great to see both Michael Emerson and Terry O'Quinn (Ben and Locke respectively) of Lost get nods for Outstanding Actor, albeit in the supporting category. I think a case could be made for either or both of them to have landed a lead spot, perhaps taking Keifer Sutherland's place in that category. While Sutherland's work is usually pretty compelling, this iteration of 24 left him very little to work with and he felt like more of a supporting character in the last two-thirds of the season.

It was good to see Heroes get some respect - 8 nominations including Outstanding Drama - though it may be a little undeserved. A good show, but very uneven in it's first season, it started to coalesce into something greater than its parts just before it completely imploded with a disastrously disappointing finale. I agree with the suggestions that this nomination may be lip service to those of us who like serialized dramas. Mark Harris has a great article about this and other aspects of the nominating process at EW.com.

Top Chef is in the running for Outstanding Reality Competition, though it will have trouble against perennial favorite The Amazing Race and another Bravo standout, Project Runway.

Alec Baldwin is up against Steve Carell in the Lead Actor - Comedy category. Though I love Carell's continually oblivious performance, Baldwin was a major reason the audience kept watching 30 Rock until the show eventually found its footing and established itself as the best new comedy of the season.

Not to drift too close to fanboydom, but most of my discontent stems from how Lost was treated by those who do the nominating. It was a stellar season (yes, from start to finish) and the second best ep of the season, "Through the Looking Glass", rightly received nominations for writing and directing. How the series didn't make the cut for Outstanding Drama however boggles one's mind, especially in light of the fact that the season finale was quite possibly two of the best hours of primetime television I have ever seen. I like Heroes, but Lost is a far better enterprise. Though maybe both should be in the final list, at the expense of the glorified soap opera that is Grey's Anatomy.

Additionally, I am gobsmacked that Elizabeth Mitchell's portrayal of Juliet on the series was completely overlooked. She should have at least gotten a nod for Supporting Actress if not Lead. Her work was simply fantastic. In each episode she appeared she was asked to play a range of emotions in order to conceal the fact that she is at least a triple agent whose sole allegiance in the end is probably only to herself. I can't imagine anyone who voted for this category seeing any of her performances and not putting her at the top of the list. It's criminal to say the least.

At least, as viewers, we have the next two months to regain our composure. At which time the polka dotted plastic rug will reappear to remind us that the voting process makes no sense, and more often than not seems to be based more on soundbites and hype (read Harris's article) rather than merit. Well, merit wins the technical categories, but we don't get to see those. They apparently don't make good television. Oh the irony!

Law & Re-Ordered

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Frasier) — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 13:51:00 +0000

Some shakeups are coming to the Law & Order set this fall, and while the net effect is yet another Y chromosome on the cast, the changes being made might help restore at least some of this old warhorse's former glory.

For starters, Jack McCoy (Sam Waterson) will be stepping up to the big chair, as Fred Thompson's presidential ambitions mean the end for his character, District Attorney Arthur Branch. It will be interesting to see McCoy move into the role of sage after 13 seasons as the driven, no-holes-barred, right-hand man; though I do slightly wonder how this promotion will be explained. Through the years, McCoy has made a lot of political enemies; of judges, defense attorney's, etc. for some of his "unorthodox" methods. I would think he would have at least some trouble getting elected DA.

To fill the ADA vacancy, Dick Wolf & co. have chosen British actor Linus Roache, most well known (at least for me) for his role as Thomas Wayne in Batman Begins. His scenes in that film - slight though they were - make me feel good about the producers' choice.

So does the addition of Jeremy Sisto, who has been tapped to replace the underwhelming Milena Govich as Detective Green's partner. Sisto was most recently seen in NBCs short-lived Kidnapped but is probably best known by some for his role on Six Feet Under.

L&O's future was up in the air as recently as a couple months ago, due to sagging ratings. Frankly the show has seemed uneven since Jerry Orbach's departure three seasons ago. While I love much of Dennis Farina's work, he didn't seem to quite fit the style and mood of this particular series, and this was probably part of what led to his early exit after two seasons . Last year's addition of Govich as Det. Nina Cassady was mishandled as well. Her character was written somewhat poorly and her performance was equally uncompelling.

If these new characters are fleshed out a little better than the additions of recent-past, the show might be able to win its appeal and get off death row.

Sein On For '30 Rock'

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Frasier) — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 17:12:00 +0000

Zap2it.com is reporting that Jerry Seinfeld will be guest starring in the season premiere of 30 Rock. He'll be playing himself. No word as to whether George will be in tow asking to get paid what Ted Danson makes, but I think this is good news for the show, which is entering it's sophomore season this fall. Hopefully, Seinfeld's appearance will drum up some viewers that can then be hooked by the show's subtly hilarious writing and spot-on performances. This is a great series which needs to see a ratings boost this coming year if it wants to stay alive.

The full story can be found on zap2it's website.

"The Bronx is Burning" and So Are Somone's Ears

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Frasier) — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 00:28:00 +0000

ESPN's miniseries documenting the Yankees' 1977 season, particularly the feud between manager Billy Martin and superstar outfielder Reggie Jackson, got underway this week. In the season opener we see that Martin (John Turturro) has more than his share of flaws, which Big Stein (caricatured here by Oliver Platt) is willing to overlook because Martin is a winner and that's what the Yanks need after not having won a pennant for more than a decade. Well, reconsiders Steinbrenner, they also need someone whose popularity can put the "meat in the seats". Enter Reggie Jackson, played with pitch-perfect charisma by Daniel Sunjata of FX's Rescue Me.

As you can expect, tension builds quickly among this triumvirate from the outset. Martin challenges Steinbrenner's decision-making on several occasions, The Boss reasserts his control in humiliating ways, and Jackson lets his stardom go to his head. With each man believing he is the savior of this once storied franchise the table is set for the historic, nationally televised dugout fight between Martin and Jackson in June of the '77 season.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot - as I think the writers may have. There are some scenes where we witness the beginnings of David Berkowitz's killing spree which kept New York paralyzed in a state of anxiety that same summer. There are also passing references to the rough social and economic situation in the city in at the time. Since the series is based on a book detailing all these aspects of that drama-filled summer, it may be safe to assume such scenes will have more purpose over the remaining seven episodes (this was alluded to in the previews as well), but in the premiere these scenes are awkwardly placed and distracting.

Though not nearly as distracting as the prosthetic ears Turturro wears.

In the beginning I wondered if I wasn't watching a story about batboy. No, not the young kid that gets to pick up after the sloppy ball players, this batboy. After a while, I kept feeling as though Martin's nose was to going to be slightly longer each time he reappeared. The fact that I watched for an entire hour and couldn't get over how ridiculous he looked might say something about how engaging the series is otherwise, but wow, what were they thinking? I looked up some pics of the real Martin online, and while his ears may have been a little bigger than your average set, they were in no way as conspicuous as the mini-satellite dishes Turturro is sporting.

Distractions aside, the series has some worthy aspects. The lead performances are all relatively solid, and the casting of the supporting players is spot-on. Especially in regards to the actors playing Thurmon Monson and Lou Pinella, though we don't see too much of them in the premiere.

I'll stick around for at least another episode to see if this thing finds its groove. But if Turturro sprouts a tale and begins braying, I'm outta here.

The Bronx is Burning runs on ESPN Tuesday nights at 10pm, with several re-airings on ESPN and ESPN2.

What Planet Was I On?

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Frasier) — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 00:56:00 +0000

I admit, I'm a few months late with this question, but WOW!!! - have you seen the Discovery Channel's Planet Earth series yet?

If you haven't don't feel too bad, I still really haven't seen it yet either, though I did have a delicious tease of it the other night. I caught the last half of the "Shallow Seas" episode. Those twenty-five or so minutes were enough however to make me understand why this documentary series has received all the hoopla it has.

Narrated by Sigourney Weaver, the episode was extraordinarily engaging, with an overabundance of gorgeous images (I was lucky enough to catch an HD broadcast). I was especially taken with the shots from what appear to be low-orbit satellites. Those images showing Earth from a distance were breathtaking - I just hope they were real. Equally breathtaking were the shots of the nooks and crannies of the planet with which most of us are unfamiliar.

When this episode ended I immediately hit the on-screen TV Guide to find out when I could watch the next one. Alas, that is the only episode on the horizon for the next couple of weeks, but if what I saw was any indication this is a series worth waiting for.

The Network Evening Sewing Circle

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Frasier) — Sat, 30 Jun 2007 12:24:00 +0000

Finally, someone stood up for at least a modicum of integrity in television journalism.

If you haven't seen it yet, check out the above video from earlier this week. MSNBC reporter Mika Brzezinski has a mini-breakdown of sorts when producers keep trying to make Paris Hilton's release the lead story on the Morning Joe program. Good for her. It's insane that network and cable news have been hijacked by an item that should have never left the general vicinity of Page-Six.

A similar situation was alluded to recently in a Washington Post story about Dan Rather and his remarks regarding the Katie Couric era of The CBS Evening News.

Not that I really care that much though. I can't tell you the last time I watched a network news broadcast; maybe Couric's first day. Not only is it ludicrous to think that thirty minutes is enough to discuss a given day's happenings, but to waste that condensed interval with stories that have zero to little effect on any one's daily lives is borderline criminal. Men and women are dying in a desert half-way around the world, all three branches of the government have simultaneously decided that now is a great time to be incompetent, and China is apparently going out of its way to try and poison us and our pets. I can't think of a better time for in-depth reporting on a scatter-brained socialite's "bad luck".

Perhaps it's a conspiracy. Every minute that these sewing circle talking heads spend gabbing about Paris Hilton is one less minute we get to see how inept our elected representatives are at actually representing us. Who knows, maybe the real reason VP Cheney is keeping a lid on his documents is because he doesn't want it known that he ordered Hilton's arrest in an attempt to change the topic.

Of course, we the viewers are probably as much to blame as the producers, or at least says another Post columnist, Lisa de Moraes. But regardless of whose fault is is, is it really that hard to figure out why network news ratings are tanking?

"The Closer" Re-Opens

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Frasier) — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 11:53:00 +0000

The third season of the The Closer started this week. Though it can sometimes feel a little too formulaic, this has always been a strong show, primarily due to the cast and their portrayal of characters that the writing team has developed quite fully within the limited boundaries of the show's format. My main complaint has been the tendency of the show to be a little gory with it's murder victims, and the new season premiere was no different. I didn't really think it was necessary to focus twice on the corpse of a twelve year old girl who had been stabbed multiple times. In fact, I think it probably could have been a more powerful scene had we not seen her at all, but instead focused more on the reactions of the detectives. We could have gotten as clear a feel for of the situation without having to see the details.

For an example of what I mean check out the final scene of Clint Eastwood's Unforgiven. When Eastwood's character kills Gene Hackman's at point blank range, the camera is from Hackman's point of view looking up the barrel of the gun at Eastwood. Before, during, and after the fatal shot we see nothing but Eastwood's face and it is a much more intense scene than it would have been if we had been forced to witness Hackman take the bullet.

In a different manner, Seinfeld did a similar thing by going out of their way to talk about TV-taboo topics in ways that would pass the censors and not lower themselves to the style of humor that makes Two and a Half Men unwatchable. They did such a good job with those situations that the scenes involved were actually funnier than they would have been it they had gone with the shock-approach.

I'll keep watching The Closer because it's a good show overall, I'll just have to close my eyes for the first few minutes of each episode. I guess there are some advantages to sticking to formula.

Playing Plinko WIth My Heart Strings

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Frasier) — Fri, 15 Jun 2007 15:30:00 +0000

And thus endeth an era. I just finished watching Bob Barker's final episode as host of The Price is Right. When I was a kid - and by kid I mean all the way through when I was in high school - I remember watching this show every weekday I happened to be home at 11am.

There's something kinda cool about how quick you unwittingly get sucked into sharing the contestants' excitement. Every ounce of my cynicism was temporarily drained away as I found myself involuntarily smiling and actually enjoying someone elses's good fortune; something you don't get to do with a lot of television these days. It's a feeling I had almost forgotten until I tuned in today; the first time I've watched the show in probably fifteen years.

There's another reason I was glad I tuned in today. It brought back one of my fondest memories of being young - watching The Price is Right over lunch with my grandfather whenever I happened to be visiting. We'd set up in the living room with our TV trays, my grandmother would bring us lunch, and we would spend the next hour guessing prices, discussing prizes and generally just having a good time.

Farewell Bob, and thanks for a least a few minutes of feeling like a kid again. The show won't be quite the same without you.

Putting the "F" in FCC

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Frasier) — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 18:53:00 +0000

Who do you root for in a case where everyone's motives are misguided at best and disingenuous at worst?

A federal appeals court in New York has ruled that the FCC overstepped it's authority when it fined the FOX network for airing "fleeting expletives" during separate broadcasts of the Billboard Music Awards. The specifics of the case can be found at all the major news sites. What it boils down to is that the FCC got reprimanded for changing it's policy regarding flying-f*&^s without providing adequate justification for doing so.

Let's just assume for a second that any of the seven people who actually watch the Billboard Music Awards on FOX was actually offended. The odds that the thin-skinned viewer actually wrote the FCC? ZERO. Our friendly special interest groups, who believe their taste and judgement trumps everyone else's, employ individuals whose sole job it is to sit and watch TV all day looking for something they can label "offensive". They then jump on these instances and, through the virtue of their mailing list, convince a lot of people who never actually saw the "offensive" moment to complain to the FCC, thus creating a media firestorm which helps them with their primary goal, which is getting their names in the paper. Oh yeah, and there's also that meaningless fine that doesn't really change anything, but that's just icing. The Simpsons did a great parody of this situation in it's recently broadcast 400th episode, using Ned Flanders, of course, as the watchdog viewer.

Based on that premise the court's decision should be considered good news right? Well, not really, and that's because the issue isn't as much about free speech as the networks and studios would like us to think. It's about them being able to use shock-value to generate publicity and viewers when they need to. If you're gonna fine CBS for letting Janet Jackson's breast slip, then you also have to fine CBS News and all the other outlets who aired it ad-nauseum for the following three weeks.

So, when most of the players involved are little more than publicity craving [deleted fleeting expletive]s, the court's ruling feels less like a win for those of us in favor of personal responsibility and more like yet another opportunity for the media whores to turn some tricks.

Unfortunately, in this decorum-less age where we're blistered with f-bombs while simply walking through the mall, live television will always run the risk of a fleeting-expletive here or there. If they really wanted to change the landscape, the networks would pass the cost of their fines along to the actual offenders. If the Bonos, Janet Jacksons, and Nicole Ritchies of the world were stuck with a bill for displaying their lack of tact, then maybe others might pick up a copy of Emily Post now and then.

Post-script: The New York Times take on this was interesting. Apparently, the court based some of their decision on the fact that President Bush and VP Cheney aren't afraid to let the expletives fly in public:

If President Bush and Vice President Cheney can blurt out vulgar language, then the government cannot punish broadcast television stations for broadcasting the same words in similarly fleeting contexts.
But the judges said vulgar words are just as often used out of frustration or excitement, and not to convey any broader obscene meaning. “In recent times even the top leaders of our government have used variants of these expletives in a manner that no reasonable person would believe referenced sexual or excretory organs or activities.”
Adopting an argument made by lawyers for NBC, the judges then cited examples in which Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney had used the same language that would be penalized under the policy. Mr. Bush was caught on videotape last July using a common vulgarity that the commission finds objectionable in a conversation with Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain. Three years ago, Mr. Cheney was widely reported to have muttered an angry obscene version of “get lost” to Senator Patrick Leahy on the floor of the United States Senate.

Thwngk!!!!

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Frasier) — Sun, 03 Jun 2007 18:46:00 +0000

Okay, so the title of this post probably makes no sense unless you try to pronounce it phonetically. Go ahead, give it a try. Still have no clue what I'm talking about? Why it's the sound signalling the return of Top Chef of course; or at least my underwhelming attempt to somehow articulate the show's signature sound of a knife being unsheathed.

Get ready to hear more of that sound, because season three is coming our way on June 13th. In this week's issue of EW, Producer/Head Judge Tom Colicchio promises a more mature group than the socially retarded troupe we had in season two. Thank goodness for that. This show has always been better when it's been more focused on the food and the competition rather than the contestants. Kudos to the producers for recognizing that as a big part of the show's charm and getting the enterprise back on the right track. In fact, according to the same article, most of this season's crop of contestants are relatively well-established in their own right, which leads me to think of how cool a Top Chef: Celebrity Chef Edition might be. How awesome would it be to see the likes of Emeril, Wolfgang Puck, and Cat Cora on the business end of the judges' table? Not much different from Iron Chef: America you say? Guess again my friend. For all it's strengths, Iron Chef has never asked it's contestants to come up with something brilliant given only 30 minutes and $2 for the vending machine.

Also added to the recipe for season three are a new judge and a new locale. A frequent guest judge in seasons past, Ted Allen has signed on to a full-time judging role. His style and humor will be a welcome addition to what is already a respectable judges' table. A table that this season will be located in Miami. It will be interesting to see if the change in coasts has any effect on the sorts of dishes the contestants create.

As a sort of amuse-bouche prior to the start of the new season, Bravo is bringing us a one-night (June 6th) sudden death round of Top Chef featuring a face-off of the top-shelf contestants from seasons one and two. My money is on any team which includes season one winner Harold Dieterle. Ilan and his sidekick Winged Hairdo Boy I'm sure will each prove too much of a distraction to the other for their season two teammates to overcome.

"Lost" - Tantalizing Rumor Alert

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Frasier) — Thu, 31 May 2007 18:15:00 +0000

BuddyTV and Kristin at E!Online are reporting that Micheal and Walt might be back full time on the island - or in the future - come season four. Rumor has it both Harold Perrineau (Michael) and Malcom David Kelley (Walt) have been approached to return to Lost as series regulars.

The full story is at BuddyTV.com. I'm intrigued by the possibility the article suggests that Walt's aging will be handled in the show. Could this mean we see him in flash-forwards? Could this mean when he raised Locke from the dead he was coming back from the future? Did he and Michael never really get off the island and his growth is the effect of Others experiments or the weird electromagnetism of the island?

Man-oh-man is it going to be a long nine months!!!!!

Skip Through The Ads My Darlin'

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Frasier) — Tue, 29 May 2007 11:02:00 +0000

No wonder the majority of new shows each season tank - it turns out, in this era of DVRs and OnDemand programming, TV execs are spending more time finding ways to develop ad revenue than they are developing new series.

From a certain standpoint, I can appreciate this. Ultimately, if they can't sell ads, we won't get television for nearly as inexpensively as we do now. Unless we want a glut of a quasi-reality, American Idol type shows; cheap to produce and hand-over fist money makers.

The problem is they're focusing on the wrong problem. DVRs provide essentially the same function as VCRs, which have been around for close to 30 years. Why the sudden scare that commercial viewership is decreasing? Granted a DVR will allow you to only slightly time shift a program (say start watching it 10 minutes in), where with a VCR you have to wait until the show is done recording. However, with the limited numbers of DVRs in use I have to ask again, what is the sudden scare? It can't be any sort of pre-emptive strike, American businesses having proven time and again that they are too shortsighted to be proactive. So what is it that they are actually reacting to?

Got me. Even though I skip through the ads most times when watching recorded programs, I sometimes will stop and go back if something catches my eye. For instance I'm a big fan of the Mac ads, so if I catch a glimpse while one is going by at the speed of a freight train, I back up the program to check it out. Same goes for something that looks quirky or funny in high-speed; I'll go back to play it in real time to see if it was. When watching a show "live" however, I usually just change the channel to something else and wait out the commercial break - thank goodness for dual-tuner DVRs. In this scenario the advertisers actually fair better when I'm watching something I've recorded or time-shifted on the DVR.

Contrary to what they teach in business school, advertising can be successful without being in your face. A poorly designed ad will fail no matter how high it's volume or obnoxious it's presence. A well designed ad however, even one playing on a TV used primarily as background noise, can still catch the interest of the essentially uninterested viewer. So can a well-thought-out product placement.

You know what I remember more than the commercials that aired during an episode or season of The Office weeks or even months after it has ended? The fact that they have Staples products strewn throughout the Dunder-Mifflin complex. The irony of this juxtaposition makes this memorable enough, but the fact that I notice, and chuckle at it every week makes it even more so. Staples is getting every bit of their money's worth out of that deal.

Product placements can work, and don't necessarily have to lessen the integrity of the show. Of course, if they are done poorly and out of context - see the J&J Acuvue placement in a Smallville episode from a couple seasons ago - the results can be horrific. I'm willing to risk it however, if for no other reason than the hope that it might free up some time for the suits to work on giving us some innovative programming.

Season Finale Highlights and Lowlights

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Frasier) — Tue, 22 May 2007 20:10:00 +0000

Lots of big doin's in the past week. Here are some of the highlights (and lowlights):

The Simpsons - The finale actually consisted of two unrelated episodes, the second being the series' 400th. The first episode however was my favorite of the two. I love The Simpsons, but I rarely watch the episodes in their first run anymore; I either wait for syndication or the DVDs. However, when I saw they were doing a 24 parody I couldn't pass. This ep was spot on (did I see Jack with his man bag?) and so good in fact that I want more Simpson's episodes in this style. The second episode was good too, if for no other reason than Homer's letting us know that he learned from Fox news that "Mexican gays are sneaking across the border and unplugging our brain-dead ladies". Looking forward to the movie this summer.

The Office - A classic episode, and a great way to end a great season. Michael's going nowhere, Jim's got a date with Pam, and Ryan will now be Michael's boss. His exchange with Kelly after his phone call from corporate was fantastic. As was the barely noticeable comment from CFO David Wallace that the corporate HR guy is kind of a jerk. The table has been set for what should be a hilarious fourth season. My only concern is that NBC has apparently ordered thirty episodes for next season. That's 1/3 more the funny; it may be hard to pull off.

24 - This episode was better than most of it's predecessors this season, but still indicative of the unevenness of this sixth season. It was good to see the return of Jack's man bag, but his final confrontation with his father was a bit of a let down. Plus wasn't it just super-convenient that Audrey's house was only a four minute walk from the spot where Jack jumped off the helo? Lots of stories about the producers hearing our frustration and making some significant changes for Jack's next long day. Let's hope they're true.

Lost - Thank goodness for DVRs. I don't think I would have remained mentally stable (relatively, of course) if I had to wait through each commercial break of what was an especially intense and simultaneously uplifting and browbeating two hours of television. The game has definitely changed, and I didn't really see it coming until Jack was alone in his pad with countless maps of the South Pacific. The only other clue I picked up in my initial watching was how new his cell phone looked, but I thought maybe that was just a prop dept. mistake. What a great episode: action, emotional engagement, a good number of loose ends tied up, and several more laid out. I can't wait to see how the show will reconcile its "new" format with the need to tie up all the other loose ends that still exist. Who's funeral do you think it was nobody showed up for?

Smallville - A little uneven, like the rest of the season. Lana's death was a (self-planned) setup telegraphed by the unnecessary delivery van that passed in front of her right before the explosion. I was really hoping Lois was actually dead and Chloe was going to take over her identity for some reason. I'll be sad if Chloe is really dead, cause the actress is much more likable than the chick who plays Lois. The appearance of the Martian Manhunter and Bizarro was cool, but could have been much better executed. This show never allows for more than five minutes an episode for its climactic scenes, and it usually results in a bit of a letdown, just like...

Heroes - I loved the final episode, right up until the last scene with Nathan jetting Peter off to safely explode in the atmosphere. I don't really care if Nathan's dead, but if they really killed off Peter I may stop watching; it's like killing off Superman in a Justice League scenario. The two episodes leading up to the final had a lot of build up to what was billed as a spectacular confrontation. Well, there was a confrontation, but it wasn't very spectacular, and it lasted less than three minutes. Peter used none of his powers to stop Sylar, instead absorbing Nikki's strength to knock him around until Hiro showed up to deliver the fatal blow. This begs another question. Why couldn't Peter just fly himself away? Why did he need Nathan? Hiro's eventual landing in Ancient Japan is interesting, but like a lot of other viewers I felt a little insulted by how weak a job was done of wrapping things up. This show had a good first season, but I think a lot of that was based on faith. I kept watching, even though I wasn't totally connected with any of the characters, for the promise of what the show could be. It seemed like in the last few episodes it might live up to that potential, but then at the last minute it tripped. I just hope in can pick itself up for season two.

"24" aka "As The Clock Ticks"

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Frasier) — Tue, 15 May 2007 17:58:00 +0000

While watching 24 last night I couldn't help but wonder if the writing staff had walked out and been replaced by soap opera writers. Are you kidding me with that heart-to-heart between the Veep and Karen? The only thing missing was some weepy violin music playing softly in the background. But that wasn't the only homage to daytime serials in this episode. Marilyn's question to Jack - "Did he say anything else?" - regarding Papa Bauer's abduction demand for Josh confirmed in my mind that the boy is actually Jack 2.0; a fact I'm sure Jack will find out only once his spawn has died at the hands of his dear old, China-loving, seriously-in-need-of-a-trim Grandad.

It's a shame really, because last night's episode started off pretty good; even in spite of the fact that the writers actually want us faithful viewers to believe that a building as secure as CTU could be breached through a sewer grate in what appears to be the building's utility closet. It was good to see Jack and The Ricker force a showdown with Cheng, and even better to see Morris gain some redemption through his helping Jack and Nadia take out their captors. Those instances were fleeting however, and not enough to make up for the ridiculousness of the aforementioned scenes or that of the White House Chief of Staff running a covert field-op.

When will this day ever end? Oh yeah, that's right, next week.

"Lost" Housekeeping

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Frasier) — Wed, 09 May 2007 11:41:00 +0000

The end-date of Lost has been confirmed and Jeff Jensen at EW.com has an interesting interview with the producers about the show's future prospects now that they can officially say they know where the show is going. Note the Star Wars reference buried in the middle of the article.

Jensen's preview of tonight's episode, "The Man Behind the Curtain", is also available at EW.com. Especially intriquing is the producers' tease that "two words will change Locke's life". Also note a second Star Wars reference from an unrelated source. Despite Lost's numerous father-son dynamics, I don't actually buy into the show being based in any way on the Skywalker family tree. Still, the references and related theories are kinda fun.

I'm getting extremely psyched for the finale. I'm trying my hardest to stay away from the spoiler sites, but sometimes can't help myself. By all accounts we are building to what sounds like a great two-hour season ender.

"Law & Order": Moving Violation

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Frasier) — Wed, 09 May 2007 11:17:00 +0000

Speculation has been rampant in recent weeks that Law & Order (the original) might not get renewed by NBC this fall in light of declining ratings. As an aside: the network moved the show to Fridays at 10pm, not necessarily the hottest TV watching time. That may not matter however, because there are reports out today that TNT may pick up the show if NBC declines to. This makes sense since TNT is already basically branded with the show, airing somewhere around a score of eps a week (not counting the occasional holiday marathon).

Also, I think the cable outlet would be more willing to air new episodes in a more prestigious time slot then that to which NBC has relegated it as of late. In fact, imagine what a 1-2 punch an evening of The Closer followed by a new Law & Order (or vice versa) would pack. My only fear is that TNT might not have the budget to pay for the current cost of episodes (reportedly $4M per), thus the move from network to cable might mean a major cast shakeup; a proposition which may not be all that bad to some fans of the show.

I rely almost exclusively on TNT to watch L&O, so the change suggested suits me just fine. In fact, I would probably be more apt to watch first run episodes if they aired at a better time - maybe Tuesday nights - on TNT. My only request is that the network start incorporating earlier episodes of the series into their rotation of reruns. I've seen the pack of early '00s episodes so many times I'm beginning to speak in an Elisabeth Rohm inspired monotone.

An Amazing Race With A Disappointing Finish

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Frasier) — Tue, 08 May 2007 00:49:00 +0000

I was a little disappointed with the outcome of last night's Amazing Race finale. The show itself was great, and the challenges exceedingly challenging. I especially loved the final Newlywed Game-type challenge where one team member needed to complete questions using a numbered list of possible answers. The answers formed a four-digit code that was used to lock an electronic safe holding the final clue. Then teammates switched and if the second team member came up with the same answers they could open the safe; if not they had ten excruciating minutes to keep trying, after which they were given the code and the clue. Only one team got out before the ten minute limit, and they went on to win the race.

That couple, and the root of my aforementioned disappointment: Danielle and Eric (aka Big Boobs and Sir Whines-A-Lot). To be fair, they were pretty decent competitors, overcoming several setbacks throughout the season. However, I just can't get past how much of a whiner Eric was whenever things didn't go his way, especially his ridiculously misguided feelings of betrayal after the yield episode a couple weeks back.

The other two teams in the top three were just as annoying in their own ways, so it was hard to really root for anyone. With the beauty queens being somewhat ethically challenged, I was kind of pulling for Charla and Mirna, despite their complete condescension to every foreigner they met.

I've written earlier that this was my first season watching this show. I'll be back when it returns. Not only for the show itself, but also for Josh Wolk's consistently hilarious recaps at EW.com. If you take the time to check them out, start with these two:

http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20037230,00.html
http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20036297,00.html

Losties Closer to Being Found? UPDATE

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Frasier) — Sat, 05 May 2007 01:51:00 +0000

May 7th - It was made official today, Lost will finish up after another 48 episodes spread over 3 seasons, with an expected end-date of 2010. Do the math and you'll see that each season will be roughly 2/3 of a normal season order. My guess is this is due to some sort of compromise between the producers and the network that will allow the producers to get out around 120 eps and the network to milk the Lost cash-cow for as long as possible. More detail can be found here.

May 4th - Big news today from sources at E!Online. Looks like the suits at ABC might be set to announce a series end for Lost. Notice I said "end" rather than "end-date". Apparently there is no word as to how much longer the castaways will be stranded. Conventional wisdom seems to say two more seasons, however the producers have been quoted as saying they always saw it as a about a 100 episode show. If that's the case, then after this season there might only be around 35 new episodes before we find out what Smokey the Monster is all about (in a recent podcast the producers stated that that is one mystery that won't be solved 'til series end).

Even though Lost is my favorite show right now, I think this is great news, and as I've written before, this could possibly lead to a sea-change in how networks develop shows. Just think of all those great series whose excellence was diminished by having stayed on the air just a little too long. I truly believe that after a bumpy transition, green-lighting certain shows with defined ends in sight could really be a money maker for the networks. Read my earlier post for reasons why.

The announcement is expected sometime in the next week. In the meantime we can all relish in what a great episode "The Brig" was this week and look forward to what by all accounts sounds like an awesome season finale.

Not Exactly My "Brando" Documentary, But Good

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Frasier) — Sat, 05 May 2007 00:19:00 +0000

Turner Classic Movies' profile of Marlon Brando is entertaining if not enlightening. To be sure, you get a sense of what helped shape this intriguing, iconic, and unique (to say the least) personality, but the film at times seems afraid to dig too deep and often changes direction. It sets out with an apparent intention to be a character study, but quickly turns into a somewhat superficial career retrospective.

Not that such a project shouldn't be a celebration. We're talking about someone who is arguably one of the greatest actors ever. The anecdotes shared by his friends and colleagues are great; touching, funny, and in some cases brutally honest. But too often the conversation drifts back to something close to sycophancy - one of the drawbacks of relying solely on interviews to provide the narration - which grows a little tired after two-and-a-half plus hours.

Despite all of this the film is filled with engaging moments throughout. Brando's rather extensive knowledge about the craft of film making (not just acting) is touched upon, as is his well-known reputation for being less than cooperative on-set. In addition to the public persona the film also explores the political side of Brando's fame. Learning about the breadth of Brando's activism, especially regarding civil rights, is eye opening. His support of American Indians is well known (and famously recorded in the 1973 Academy Awards ceremony), but it is interesting to learn he came "this close" to joining the Black Panthers in the late 60s. The insight gained regarding his relationship with his parents is equally fascinating, but again, every time the film gains steam with such topics it quickly changes gears.

For anyone interested in acting or film or even just pop-culture, this biography is required viewing, just make sure to watch it in parts. TCM is rebroadcasting the film in its entirety at 5:15pm on 5/12 and 3:15am on 5/29. The official website can be found here.