]]> "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?" taught a valuable lesson during its original run. It became an instant hit, a show not to miss. Even teenagers watched it with fervor.
Then came a few problems. Once someone actually became a millionaire, the fun of expectation was gone. It was like landing on the moon; when someone else tried to do it, audiences said, "So what?"
Not helping was the overextension of the brand itself. It seemed like a night couldn't go by without an episode airing. That will exhaust even the most die-hard fans.
It's no wonder then that networks have appeared to approach game shows with trepidation since then. They have recognized that today's game shows can only grab audience attention in bursts, and they've pulled game shows before they could lose too much interest. "The Price is Right" is the rare exception, having survived for decades on its kitschy appeal and the status of former host Bob Barker. Interest in even that show has waned, however, since Drew Carey took over as host a few years ago.
But networks continue to pursue the genre as a viable form of entertainment. Sometimes they take the less-risky route of reinventing a hit show rather than trying to create a new success. A few weeks ago, for example, CBS announced that it would replace the long-running soap opera "Guiding Light" with the classic "Let's Make A Deal" in October.
There have been a few new shows to break through to audiences. In the last few years, Fox found decent ratings with "Are You Smarter Than a Fifth-Grader?" and NBC's "Deal or No Deal" has come closest to approaching "Millionaire"-level interest. It even danced on the line of "too much of a good thing" from time to time but was careful never to cross it.
The genre might take a beating, but it never will die. The airwaves are littered with reruns and syndicated series, and network honchos always will turn to the genre in times of desperation. Shows more often find homes in syndication during less-demanding hours, like "Jeopardy!" being sandwiched between the evening news and primetime shows. ABC for several years has aired new "Millionaire" episodes on weekday afternoons, which probably didn't help garner interest for the recent primetime episodes.
There's a time and place for everything, and it doesn't always work out in a series' favor. Sometimes, people just don't want to throw a show a lifeline, no matter how great it once might have been.]]>
]]> There are worse ways to plug a show, after all, and whoever created the "Mad Men" one was pretty crafty. Users start by selecting their gender ("Suits" or "Skirts") and then choose their body type, hair and skin color, eyes, nose, clothing, accessories and scene.
When they're done, they can download a few versions of the image they've created. I know several people who saved their 1960s "Mad Men"-style selves and turned the images into their social-networking avatars. Suddenly, my friends are wearing suits or pillbox hats and milling about the fictional Sterling Cooper office or having cocktails in a classy bar.
Programs like these are nothing new; other entertainment projects have used them before, most likely because they're clever and they work. People using them -- potential viewers -- have a little fun, and the shows get some free advertising.
But even if people could care less about "Mad Men," the program still is an enjoyable way to waste a little free time and see what someone would have looked like in 1960s Manhattan.
Good news for 'Futurama'
It turns out that all my ranting and raving last week about the possibility that "Futurama" might recast its voice actors -- a decision capable of invoking the wrath of fans worldwide -- was for nothing.
Word broke late last week that the voice actors for "Futurama" had reached an agreement to hold on to their roles, despite 20th Century Fox TV putting out a casting call a few weeks ago to seek new actors for the show.
So put down that paper bag; you can start breathing easy again -- John DiMaggio, Billy West, Katey Sagal, Maurice LaMarche and Tress MacNeille are coming back, according to Variety.
The show, which aired from 1999 to 2003 and found success with DVD releases and reruns, will air new episodes starting in 2010 on Comedy Central. And now not only will fans' favorite characters be back, but the people who gave them their personalities will be there as well.]]>
]]> "Futurama" will return in 2010 because Comedy Central, which has aired repeats of the show, ordered 26 new episodes.
That word broke in early June, and fans everywhere celebrated. Some felt the show had been canceled before its time and were glad it finally was receiving the treatment they felt it deserved.
And then word came late last month that although the show would return, the voices from its original episodes might not.
What?
In a bizarre move, the actors who leant their voices to "Futurama" -- Billy West, Katey Sagal and others -- the ones who fans identify with the characters, the ones beloved to viewers, might be replaced. The reason? Money, apparently.
Variety reported that a smaller budget would cut the actors' salaries, and negotiations took "a turn for the worse." There are no plans to continue talks between 20th Century Fox TV and the stars, the newspaper reported, so the studio put out a casting call for new actors.
The news came as a blow to fans, taking excitement levels from Mount Everest-high to Mariana Trench-low. What would be the point, after all, of looking forward to the return of a favorite show if the voices were not the same?
Using new voice actors would be a blow to the series; that need not be debated. Shows always lose a little momentum when they need to recast or replace a character. Replacing an entire cast is like slamming on the brakes when traveling at high speed.
"Futurama" has had strong writing, but it cannot survive on that, even if the new episodes are as well-penned as the originals. What made the show so funny for much of its first run was the actors and their way of reading the lines. Their voices fit with their characters like peanut butter fits with jelly. Putting others in their place is like mixing that peanut butter with toothpaste. It just doesn't work.
If "Futurama" cannot get more money to bring back the original stars -- or if the stars decide to keep seeking more money -- then Comedy Central shouldn't even bother reviving the series. The new episodes would be awkward, disappointing and take away from the hilarity the early seasons established. If the show cannot be done as well as it once was, then it should not be done at all.
And no matter who ends up providing the voices, if they do indeed replace the cast, they will not live up to the originals. It won't be their fault, though. They could be the best actors ever created, and they still wouldn't work. How these characters appear is engrained in fans' minds. Anything new would be an insult to the viewers who clamored for the show to return with new episodes and thought their wishes finally were being granted.
Incorporating a new cast isn't the way "Futurama" should return, and the show runners -- and the cast -- should have more respect for the series and its fans when addressing that.
After all, Dr. Zoidberg just wouldn't make me laugh anymore.]]>
One of the interesting things about the program is that it lets you save your figure when you're done. You can dress it in several outfits, accessorize it and place it in a few settings. It's like an electronic paper doll that looks exactly like you. And, you know, is on one of the most awesome shows ever.]]>
Tirdad Derakhshani makes an excellent point throughout, saying what many people have been thinking: "If (Syfy president Dave) Howe worries that people who see the old label will expect 'space-based ... traditional ... kind of sci-fi,' then why change it to a word pronounced exactly the same? (I say tomahto, you say ... tymyty?)"]]>
I could criticize TLC for hours for dropping its original premise (remember when it was called "The Learning Channel"?) and opting more for lowly reality television like "Jon and Kate Plus Eight." But programs like "What Not to Wear," "Say Yes to the Dress" and others make up for some of the channel's failures.
]]> What makes "What Not to Wear" work the most, however, is its ability to surpass the superficial. Sure, the stylists throw out people's chunky shoes and oversized sweaters and replace them with items a lot of the people probably would not have picked out on their own in a store.
They're not redoing a wardrobe just for the sake of spending thousands of dollars on cashmere and shoes. They try to maintain contestants personalities and show them instead how they can better portray who they are. They show people who hide in their clothes that they are beautiful people who need not be afraid of others seeing them for who they are. They are picking out new clothes, but they're mainly encouraging confidence.
Sure, people might place too much emphasis on clothes in the professional world, and people judge others by what they wear. It's a difficult truth, and a television show like "What Not to Wear" is going to change that.
But it's not trying to, either. (Whether it should is a whole other argument). It instead recognizes that unfairness and tries to show people how to dress more professionally so they have better career opportunities.
Contestants have not changed who they are; they are just better showing off their assets and are bound to earn more respect. The audience leaves the program feeling like it's learned something -- maybe that "Learning Channel" business stuck around in some form after all -- even if it's just a tip about pinstripe pants.
In a society where people buy rubber shoes like they're going out of style (hard to do when they were never in style to begin with) and wear pajama pants to do their grocery shopping, I'm all for television trying to help people dress better. Maybe that's why I like watching black-and-white shows from the '50s and '60s. People looked so much classier and respectful then, even in their casual wear.
So watch out, Lady In an Inappropriately Short Skirt and Halter Top. You might end up on TLC one day. The public is watching -- and just trying to help.]]>
]]> And with two more movies in the series scheduled for release in coming years, the marathons are sure to only grow in length.
Desperately seeking better commercials
The good thing about watching the coverage of the Tour de France on television is that there almost always is something to watch, even if it's just a recut version of the race from earlier in the day.
The bad part is that you have to put up with some of the worst commercials ever made. While there are a few high-end ads (Cadillac ones starring Kate Walsh of "Private Practice" come to mind) it seems like most of the commercial time is taken up by cheaply created spots that resemble infomercials. Daily they badger me with 800-numbers through which to obtain absurd products that supposedly will change my life. And daily I mute the television during the commercial breaks.
Many of these ads, particularly if you catch the late-night reruns, are for products that would make you blush if your parents were in the same room. I have, however, caught some of these during the day, so if your 8-year-old who loves bike racing asks you what these products do, that might be where he heard about them.
And as if the subject matter and quality of the commercials were not so base already, they also are shown constantly. There seems to be only a set number of ads available to air, so viewers seem them again and again and again during the three-week race. The repetition becomes quite irritating. I'm practically an expert on Cadillacs now.
Almost there
At last, there is less than a month to go until the premieres of two of my favorite shows: "Psych," "Monk" and "Mad Men."
The three are summer series but have later starts this year than in past years. It's probably better for them -- less time competing with summer vacations, and the potential to go up against returning fall shows -- but it's been rough for those of us in the peanut gallery.
The summer has seemed pretty long as far as television goes. Aside from "Harper's Island" on CBS and a few cable shows, there hasn't been much original programming. Since I'm not one for "Wipeout" and similar reality shows, I've basically been treading water and waiting for my favorites to show up.
It will be refreshing to see them again, especially because of their quality. "Mad Men" is one of the best shows out there, with its smart writing, talented cast and mix of debauchery and 1960s suaveness.
If you're in the mood for laughs though, "Monk" and "Psych" will help you out there. "Monk" has started to show its age a little, but it's a comfortable show that has a cast with great chemistry and always delivers. "Psych" has built its success on a mix of absurdity and pop-culture references. Watching "Psych" is like a game; whoever catches the most cultural Easter eggs wins.
"Psych" and "Monk" return to USA Network on Aug. 7. Catch the third-season premiere of "Mad Men" on Aug. 16 on AMC.]]>
]]> And while "Beaver" has its funny moments, I just found the family on "Father Knows Best" to be more likable. Sure, it's an occasionally saccharine look at life in the 1950s, but there still was something more real about the characters than on other programs. They encountered circumstances like a lot of people encounter, even 50-plus years later. You can relate to them.
But the show also is quite funny. It has held up well over the decades because it was strong to begin with. There are some jokes that are funny no matter what year you're in.
Perhaps what I enjoy the most about watching it, however, is that it is an escape to a time when life seemed better. The world seemed more simple.
People throw a lot of insults as programs like "The Donna Reed Show" and "Beaver" for how perfect the women always dressed when they were doing housework or how they supposedly were being put down in a male-dominant society. I hate this argument. Sure, June Cleaver (Barbara Billingsly) on "Beaver" always seemed to have her finest dress on when she was making dinner; I'll give you that point. But she also knew how to guide and influence her family, as did Margaret Anderson (Jane Wyatt) on "Father Knows Best."
And Donna Reed? She headlined the show, in case these folks didn't notice. And there were plenty of times you saw her character, Donna Stone, taking charge and getting her hands dirty. If anything, she was a great role model for women as an actress and as a character. Not only did Donna the actress have enough power to star in her own program, but her character was a can-do woman who multitasked with the best of them.
And in the end, these shows depicted families having dinner together every night, boys dressing in shirt and tie for everyday occasions and people just being nicer to each other and more considerate.
Maybe they were just kidding themselves and trying to put a sunny face on a society that was blacklisting some people and discriminating against others. But I'd like to think that the people making the shows -- as well as "Beaver" and "The Donna Reed Show" -- were optimists who created fictional worlds they wanted to make real. And they are worlds in which I'd like to live.]]>
But the truth is, I have no idea who any of the characters are. I read their names in snippets here and there, but I could not tell you who the actors are who play them. I don't know when the CW airs it, so I can't even offer the "but (insert other show's name here) is on at the same time" excuse. I just never started to watch it, and after a few episodes aired, I gave up the desire to do so. I missed the beginning and didn't feel like making the effort to catch up.
]]> I probably would feel different if I were still 14-years-old. After all, "Gossip Girl" is the "Dawson's Creek" of this decade, although it carries a cooler, bolder and sexier approach than "Creek," the basics of which were melodrama, poor acting and general lameness.
And like it did responding to "Desperate Housewives" with its "Real Housewives" franchise, Bravo has tried to cash in on the success of "Gossip Girl." It's begun airing "NYC Prep," following rich kids attending private schools in New York and capturing all their behavior -- good and bad.
I caught part of "Prep" the other night, and if it's any indication of what awaits me with "Gossip Girl," I'm content with waiting.
What's so strange about "Prep" is that it dances on the line between utterly disturbing and incredibly annoying. The show has the fake, glossy feeling of "The Hills" but incorporates individual interviews with cast members. The kids -- because that's what they are, really -- complain, cry and speculate about their relationships and their private lives. Previews of upcoming episodes show them partying the night away in clubs, sharing their use of fake IDs and talking about -- or not wanting to talk about -- their intimate histories.
Have we really become so low as a TV-viewing society that we have to turn to rich teenagers to entertain us? Have we run out of adults willing to become the lowlifes of reality television and therefore need to watch teenagers show off their bad behavior for our sport?
Of course, we have to take this "reality" with a grain of salt. There's no way to tell how much of it is real and how much is put on for the audience. I found it difficult to believe they were not acting for the cameras at times.
At one point this 18-year-old guy on the show was talking about two girls -- 16- and 17-years-old -- he met for a bite to eat. I'll paraphrase what he said in his confessional about the meeting: "I'm a senior, and they're juniors, so they've got a lot to learn."
Really, kid? Did you really learn that much between your last school year and this school year? He's built himself up as this mature man who is knowledgeable in the ways of the world. But it's hard to decide whether it's the smirk splashed across his face, the attitude he carries or just his general stupidity that make you want to smack him.
I don't want to watch "Prep" again, and not just because watching it would just make me feel sad. I don't think I could stand watching people act that dumb. I can handle silliness, but arrogance driving closed-mindedness is not entertainment.
It's not even a guilty pleasure.]]>
That was when O'Brien began his first of what probably will be many years as host of "The Tonight Show," the late-night chatfest started by Steve Allen in the 1950s and made iconic by Johnny Carson.
I didn't know what to expect from O'Brien. I was a fan of his last show, "Late Night with Conan O'Brien," which he ceded to Jimmy Fallon earlier this year in preparation for the move to "Tonight." (The last "Tonight" host, Jay Leno, will return to NBC in the fall to headline a 10 p.m. weeknight talk show).
]]> But there was talk of concern that O'Brien wasn't mainstream enough for the 11:35 p.m. audience. People wondered whether NBC should worry that the people who watched Leno and his down-home humor wouldn't take to O'Brien, whose fan base often has been described as college kids and youth. Perhaps O'Brien was too "out-there," they questioned, and older people might find his jokes not to their taste.
When O'Brien emerged onto the stage Monday for his first night hosting, it quickly became clear that he wasn't reworking his brand. He made fun of himself, delivered clever jokes with impeccable comedic timing and even did his famous "string dance." The videos aired -- including one in which he took a Universal Studios tram-tour group off-lot and bought the tourists gifts at a 99-cent store -- were thick with the smart wackiness familiar to established viewers (except the Joe Biden one -- that was just dumb).
And all the favorite O'Brien players were there -- former sidekick and current announcer Andy Richter and band leader Max Weinberg -- and the band even recalled O'Brien's late-night theme when it played him on stage. There was enough of the familiar to reward the fans who stuck with him through the years and brought him to this moment, but it still incorporated a sense of newness to let us know it wasn't an exact replica of what had come before.
Basically, O'Brien's debut was hilarious. I laughed more in that first night of watching him than I have in all the weeks Fallon's been running "Late Night." (Fallon's doing OK, he just has yet to fall into a rhythm and could use better writers.) And it dawned on me then how much late-night television had been lacking since O'Brien had been off-air.
I liked Leno and usually watched him instead of Letterman. But Leno never was daring or smart. He stuck to the basics because that's what people liked about him, and that was what worked. Leno made me chuckle, but O'Brien made me laugh. And, like "The Road Less Traveled," that has made all the difference.
O'Brien also has the benefit of having hosted a late-night show for roughly 16 years. He knows what he's doing when it comes to judging crowd reaction and interacting with guests. He's not visibly nervous and doesn't mumble, and he walked out on stage that first night with a confident presence. You could feel he was ready just by looking at him, the excitement and sense of wonder mixed with the smiles he couldn't contain.
It would be foolish to think O'Brien's version of "Tonight" will be exactly like his "Late Night" show, only in Los Angeles instead of New York. He'll have to change some things, but he's also proven that the heart of the show is the same old host we have known and loved.
People unfamiliar with O'Brien would do well to give him a chance. They'll be better off for it.]]>
But I'll whet your appetite just by saying I think he's going awesome. I've only read one negative review and heard one person describe his performance as "safe" (it wasn't -- that person doesn't know what he's talking about), so I know I'm not the only one who likes what's happening.
Plus, President Obama even stepped in to do a quick bit that Conan aired last night. It was great, especially in light of the fake-out "quick hello" by Hillary Clinton included in Monday's debut show.
Check it out for yourself:
]]>