Program Notes http://www.partialobserver.com/programnotes/ A blog by Mark D. Johnson - Commentary on the state of television: reviews, technology, trends, and more. en This is an XML content feed. It is intended to be viewed in a newsreader or syndicated to another site, subject to copyright and fair use. That's a Wrap! http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/ProgramNotes/~3/RpiyzWh4ook/permalink.cfm http://www.partialobserver.com/programnotes/permalink.cfm?blogid=418 It is with great remorse that I post my last entry in this blog. The fact of the matter is that there is simply too much going on in the world of television for me to keep up. While there is much I would like to comment on, my present schedule does not permit the attention to this topic that the Partial Observer readership deserves. I will close with a few random thoughts:

Too many questions? 'Lost', 'The Nine', 'Heroes'

I've heard quite a few people express major disappointment in Season Three (thus far) of "Lost". Ratings are down from last year. "Too slow, not enough answers, not enough time with the non-captive losties, they're just making it up as they go along" they whined. It's true that "Lost" is a show that requires patience from its viewers. While there are indeed an awful lot of unresolved questions, the story has certainly progressed this fall with most of the focus being on The Others. Knowing that the season would be split in two, with a 13-week hiatus after the seventh episode, the writers wisely chose to limit the scope of the "fall season" (Jack, Kate, and Sawyer are held captive by The Others, and we gain some insight on how The Others live). My feelings about the show haven't changed since I last wrote about it. And while I would agree that the fall finale was not as intense as expected, I'm confident that when the show returns in February the groundwork laid this fall will prove to be a sensible and satifying set up for the "spring season". If you're the type of person that requires instant gratification from your entertainment, "Lost" is not your kind of show. In my view, if "Lost" were to reveal all of the mysteries in just its third season, making just another good-vs-evil show, it would lose the primary element that made it so special. Frustrated viewers should either embrace the bewilderment or stop watching. And regarding the whole "they're making it up as they go along" argument? Hogwash! Anyone who has given any considerable thought to the process of writing fiction knows that these writers are very good and know (at least generally) the answers to the big questions.

While I will eagerly keep watching "Lost," I quit watching "The Nine" soon after it's debut, despite impressive critical reviews. As another show that required much patience, "The Nine" (ABC) dealt with the aftermath of a hostage situation. The former hostages now have a special bond, and over the course of the season, viewers would be dealt small glimpses of what happened during the crisis to shed light on the odd complexity of their relationships. Like "Lost", wild questions were raised, but as my wife so astutely observed, with "Lost" we could identify with the castaways because they were just as confused and unenlighted as we were/are. But with "The Nine," all of the main characters know what events occurred inside that bank and us viewers were left to try to piece it together. I felt like I walked into a room of people who suddenly stopped talking and refused to tell me what they were talking about. Not my idea of fun! Low ratings recently forced ABC to put "The Nine" on hiatus.

I did, however, stick with NBC's "Heroes", yet another big-on-questions, short-on-answers show. I felt it had a somewhat shaky start, but there was enough there to sustain interest, and the payoff is now starting to reveal itself at the close of the "fall season." Again, the characters are as confused as we are, and despite some questionable network promos that promised more answers than we got, the "Six Months Ago" episode, for me, sealed the show as worthy of its success.

Is 'Must-See TV' Back?

NBC would like us to think so, scheduling four comedies in a row on Thursday nights as in happier days for the network (i.e., pre-"Joey"). The current line-up is "My Name is Earl," "The Office," "Scrubs," and "30 Rock". Not bad (especially the first hour). Sitcoms have not done well in recent years, but I liked what a "Scrubs" producer said in a USA Today interview that I can no longer locate: he said that comedy is not dead - bad comedy is dead. Gone are the days when you could put up any sub-par sitcom on Thursday night and get good ratings because people have so many other options for entertainment these days. Sounds fairly plausible. I do find that there seem to be an overwhelming amount of good quality shows on TV these days. However, I don't think we can yet say that there are no more bad shows - just fewer of them.

Signing Off

So ends "Program Notes: the Blog". I'll still be hanging around the PO, of course. I hope to contribute some graphical content sporadically in the future. Until then, thanks for reading.



Comments]]> Thu, 07 Dec 2006 23:17:00 EST http://www.partialobserver.com/programnotes/permalink.cfm?blogid=418 Get Caught up with 'Battlestar Galactica' http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/ProgramNotes/~3/YE5hBdFg6iY/permalink.cfm http://www.partialobserver.com/programnotes/permalink.cfm?blogid=395 Naturally, it doesn't get the attention that "Lost" gets but may be just as deserving, because it's just about as good. In fact, I don't know how it could be any better than it is. Sure, there's been much "Battlestar" buzz on the periphery of mainstream TV, but as a basic cable sci-fi show if difficult to gain respect outside the nerdy Comic-Con crowd.

While many people dismiss any science fiction as fluff, "Battlestar" has unusual depth, finding fresh ways to explore our humanity with great realism, style, and strong acting. But indeed it's not for everyone: this is a grim tale about the human on the brink of extinction. TV doesn't get much darker than that. For those who haven't been watching "Battlestar" and appreciate the drama and insights such darkness can bring, this is the time to get caught up and start watching.

The third season premiere airs on the Sci-Fi Channel this Friday, October 6 at 9:00 PM ET, but be sure to catch a special called "The Story So Far" earlier that day at 4:00 PM (and again at 5:00 PM) or view it online at sci-fi.com. Those who have been watching are eager to see how this season plays out after a mind-blowing Season Two finale that moves the show in an unexpected direction, but it's not too late to jump in.



Comments]]> Wed, 04 Oct 2006 23:33:00 EST http://www.partialobserver.com/programnotes/permalink.cfm?blogid=395 Doctor Who: Season Two http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/ProgramNotes/~3/YR5u6bhz7rQ/permalink.cfm http://www.partialobserver.com/programnotes/permalink.cfm?blogid=386 BBC's smash hit "Doctor Who" returns to the Sci-Fi Channel this Friday night (Sep 29) with two episodes, starting at 8:00 PM ET. The first episode, a 90-minute special, is the first for David Tennant in the starring role. Christopher Eccleston, who was wonderful as the Doctor in the previous season, chose to leave the show after just one season (13 episodes) for fear of being typecast. Sad as it was to see him go so soon, the word from the UK is that Tennant does a fine job himself. Billie Piper continues as the Doctor's companion, Rose.

"Doctor Who" is a fun show, a rare combination of humor and substance among the many seriously-toned sci-fi shows in recent years. It stays true to the classic original series while keeping up with current visual trends and pacing. It deserves a solid American following.



Comments]]> Thu, 28 Sep 2006 23:24:00 EST http://www.partialobserver.com/programnotes/permalink.cfm?blogid=386 To Whom it May Concern http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/ProgramNotes/~3/ux8WfiE3LqU/permalink.cfm http://www.partialobserver.com/programnotes/permalink.cfm?blogid=346 Dear offended viewer, critic, or advertiser,

Your umbrage over the racial segregation of the tribes in this season's "Survivor: Cook Islands" is duly noted. However, it would seem your protestations are premature at this point considering a) none of you have seen it yet, and b) it's 'Survivor', and the twist will likely be over ten minutes into the second episode.

In fact, I regret to inform you that you've played right into producer Mark Burnett's marketing plan to wrangle more viewers after the show's previous lackluster outing. This is the most buzz 'Survivor' has gotten in years, thanks to your outrage. Everything about the promos indicates it is purposely provocative and ultimately tame, with zero chance of provoking a race riot.

I was personally prepared to finally not watch this installment, but I have to admit I'm somewhat intrigued by this gimmick. I regret to say I'll have to watch at least the first episode. I generally enjoy thought-provoking shows that explore race issues, and while 'Survivor' is unlikely to go into much depth on the matter, it's a chance for it to rise above it's usual blandness.

So go ahead, and give it a gander. If/when it reverts back to the status quo, stop watching. If you're still upset about the segregation after the premiere, go ahead and complain. I predict, however, that come Friday morning, if we're talking about 'Survivor' at all, it will be about how un-controversial it is, and your uproar will have been all for nothing.

Sincerely,
Mark D. Johnson, partial observer.



Comments]]> Thu, 14 Sep 2006 00:30:00 EST http://www.partialobserver.com/programnotes/permalink.cfm?blogid=346 On 9/11 Programming http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/ProgramNotes/~3/OLZqyFP0X4Y/permalink.cfm http://www.partialobserver.com/programnotes/permalink.cfm?blogid=358 I have largely avoided anniversary specials of the 9/11 attacks in previous years, but now, at the fifth anniversary mark, it seems a fitting time to look back. But some of the high-profile specials are getting some flack:

ABC's 'The Path to 9/11' Mini-Series

Democrats were hopping mad at this one, which aired tonight despite heavy criticism and demands to pull it from the schedule by those claiming it plays way too loose with the facts. Allegedly, it was written by a right-winger who decided to fabricate events in a way that reflects poorly on the Clinton Administration. However, the program did not air without major last-minute re-editing and disclaimers. I did not watch it myself because I have very little interest in which U.S. government officials and agencies are to blame, preferring to blame bin Laden. It's difficult to understand why ABC green-lit this project.

CBS: '9/11' documentary film with profanity

The '9/11' documentary by French filmmakers has aired before, and I did happen to catch this very well-done and sobering film when it first aired. Yet this time around, some CBS affiliates are worried about getting fined by the FCC because the film contains strong profanity by people reacting to the horror of the attacks. A traditional-values Christian group, the American Family Association, has also called on CBS stations to forgo or delay airing.

Two points:

  1. Why in the world doesn't the FCC have a committee to review these major cases in advance of the broadcast to let the network know if fines will indeed be handed out if aired? Affiliates are instead forced to play a ridiculous guessing game. (By the way, the FCC did not assess fines for the most recent uncensored Saving Private Ryan broadcast, and said that any review of '9/11' would take historical context into consideration - I think there is very small risk of fines for '9/11')
  2. I understand the filmmakers' wish to leave the profanity intact to preserve everything they captured in its raw state, but is it really such a big deal to bleep or mute the obscenities?

Dramatizations/re-enactments of 9/11 events

While 'The Path to 9/11' would appear to be an example of how dramatizing 9/11-related events can be a very bad idea, risking accusations of exploitation and historical revisionism, two dramatic movies from this year have received nothing but total respect, from what I've heard: United 93 and World Trade Center. I happened to catch a new Discovery Channel special last night called 'Inside the Twin Towers', which mixed actually 9/11 footage, interviews with survivors, and dramatized re-enactments. I wound up staying up to 2:30 AM because it provided an engrossing new perspective of what was going on in the WTC towers from when the first plane hit to when the second tower collapsed. It was effective TV, and sensitive to its subject matter. The re-enactments were, for the most part, believeable, and not done in cheesy, manipulative, investigative-reporting style. It airs again Sept 12, 8:00 PM ET.

CNN.com replays real-time coverage from 9-11-2001 online

A friend of mine brought this to my attention on his blog, where he asks, 'Why live in the past? Why remember so much pain?' After ignoring most past 9/11 anniversary coverage, then seeing footage from that day again last night, I found it meaningful to witness once again those unimaginable scenes, to reflect on the innocent lives lost, to remember my own reaction at the time - because with the passage of time, memories fade, the shock wears off, we adjust back to a normal life, and it would be a shame to forget how awful that day was. So go ahead, watch - and cry, and get angry again at bin Laden, and get angry that it led to this difficult war in Iraq and thousands more dead. It should quickly put the occasional profanity in '9/11' into perspective.



Comments]]> Sun, 10 Sep 2006 23:36:00 EST http://www.partialobserver.com/programnotes/permalink.cfm?blogid=358 So long, mate. http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/ProgramNotes/~3/ErOWauzasos/permalink.cfm http://www.partialobserver.com/programnotes/permalink.cfm?blogid=350 I'm saddened by the sudden death of the famed "Crocodile Hunter," Steve Irwin, who captivated throngs of viewers like myself who ordinarily wouldn't pause more than two seconds while channel hopping to watch a show about reptiles. His infectious enthusiasm and seemingly risky handling of the some of the world's most dangerous creatures brought something remarkable to television that we hadn't quite seen before. Though I haven't watched his shows for years, I recall a time maybe six years ago when his show became a nightly routine, and we sat with out mouths open as he did the craziest things with deadly snakes.

No doubt there are those who think he somewhat deserved to die the way he did, while others respect him for dying doing what he loved to do. The former stance doesn't really have much merit, considering how rare it is to be killed by the poisonous barb of a stingray. It was more bad luck than anything.

The small screen is slightly dimmer tonight.



Comments]]> Mon, 04 Sep 2006 23:47:00 EST http://www.partialobserver.com/programnotes/permalink.cfm?blogid=350 The Emmys just don't matter http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/ProgramNotes/~3/s6newygzGCA/permalink.cfm http://www.partialobserver.com/programnotes/permalink.cfm?blogid=340 The Emmy nominations were much-criticised this year due to some glaring snubs as a result of a change in nomination proceedures, but even though they seem to have less meaning than ever, they meant little before. Sure, good talent is still rewarded, but how can they be taken seriously when last year's Best Drama winner, "Lost", didn't even get nominated this year. With the Academy Awards, Oscar-winners definitely get more attention and winning movies typically see a significant bump in box office/rentals/DVD sales. Not so with the Emmys - no guaranteed rise in viewership, no guaranteed network support if the winner's ratings are weak. Just a trophy and brief recognition. Low-to-no impact. So I won't bother to rant on and on about the various injustices.

Instead, in case you missed it, here is the intro from last Sunday's ceremonies with host Conan O'Brien being inserted into several popular shows. If you can get past the unfortunate timing with that morning's deadly plane crash, it's a pretty funny bit, and the show was generally downhill from there on...



Comments]]> Wed, 30 Aug 2006 23:58:00 EST http://www.partialobserver.com/programnotes/permalink.cfm?blogid=340 Watch '30 Days' http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/ProgramNotes/~3/YN-q0g39Kpc/permalink.cfm http://www.partialobserver.com/programnotes/permalink.cfm?blogid=306 Director of the acclaimed documentary Supersize Me, Morgan Spurlock, is back with Season Two of his excellent docu-reality series in which one person spends an eye-opening thirty days outside his or her comfort zone (Wednesday's 10:00 PM EDT, FX). Topics this season include (from the official website):

"Immigration" - a man who has staunch anti-illegal immigration views and is a member of the Minutemen lives with a family of illegal immigrants.

"Outsourcing" - a man who lost his job to outsourcing travels to India, where he witnesses how the outsourcing of U.S. jobs has affected that country's culture.

"Atheist/Christian" - a woman who is an atheist lives with a fundamentalist Christian family.

"New Age" - a man who is over-worked and over-stressed attempts to find inner peace through unconventional means.

"Pro-Choice/Pro-Life" - a woman who had an abortion 6 years ago and is pro-choice resides in a pro-life group home for pregnant women.

"Jail" - Morgan Spurlock experiences life as an inmate inside a county jail.

The season premiere was actually last week, but it's the kind of show where you can jump in at any point. Also, Season One is now available on DVD. You can view the Amazon.com listing here, where you can also watch a video clip of Spurlock's talk with Bill Maher on Amazon's original "TV show," 'Amazon Fishbowl'.



Comments]]> Tue, 01 Aug 2006 22:02:00 EST http://www.partialobserver.com/programnotes/permalink.cfm?blogid=306 America's got too many talent shows! http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/ProgramNotes/~3/F2aylg2vZBk/permalink.cfm http://www.partialobserver.com/programnotes/permalink.cfm?blogid=289 The desperate search for the next 'American Idol' continued tonight as the Big Four aired the following programs simultaneously: 'Rock Star: Supernova' (CBS), 'So You Think You Can Dance' (FOX), 'America's Got Talent' (NBC), and 'The One: Making of a Music Star' (ABC). It's enough to make one long for the days when there was far less "talent" on the small screen.

The ratings winner so far, perhaps eyeing a leap to the regular-season schedule next year, is Simon Cowell's latest brain-child, 'America's Got Talent'. Even the title makes me cringe. I was saddened to see it perform so well in the ratings, but there's still a chance for it to take an 'American Inventor'-esque nosedive as the audience starts seeing the same 'good' acts over and over, now that the anything-goes auditions are over. But the Ryan Seacrest of 'Talent,' host Regis Philbin, says it feels like a hit, based on his 'Who Wants to Be a Millionaire' success.

I don't like this show for the usual reasons: the formula format, cheap production values, bad talent as entertainment (I've had my fill now, thank you), viewer voting, raucus studio audience, yet another British judge (although they're always the best of the bunch), but what I really don't like about the show is such varied talents competing against each other for the million-dollar prize. Teenage yodeler vs. juggler vs. ventriloquist vs. magician vs. harmonica player... It's just ridiculous. Is the best singer better than the best acrobat? Any attempt to apply serious judging criteria among all the contestants is quickly abandoned in favor of personal taste.

I believe it is possible to make a high-quality, deeply-engaging talent show. My dream talent show would consist only of very strong, serious talent - all music school students, for instance - and a documentary-style presentation, following the competitors through the rigors of high-stakes competition, capturing the thrill-of-victory, agony-of-defeat moments. Professional judges, no audience voting, and no shameless-fluff results shows. It could conceivably follow an existing competition: the famous Tchaikovsky Piano Competition, for example. Obviously, only about 2,300 people in America would watch this show. This is where PBS comes in. I hereby pledge my support for this show.



Comments]]> Thu, 20 Jul 2006 00:11:00 EST http://www.partialobserver.com/programnotes/permalink.cfm?blogid=289 Check out 'Office' webisodes http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/ProgramNotes/~3/zhENxSRVz50/permalink.cfm http://www.partialobserver.com/programnotes/permalink.cfm?blogid=276 Every Thursday, NBC.com offers a new webisode - a few minutes of new material - from their comedy hit 'The Office'. It's a small treat to help us get through the summer TV doldrums, and in these mini episodes the focus is on the accountants - Oscar, Kevin, and Angela - minor, but enjoyable, characters. When it appears $3000 is missing from the books, they set out to solve the mystery. The first two webisodes are currently available at this writing. While you're there, you can also view numerous deleted scenes and outtakes from the show.

Not into 'The Office'? More than one person I know didn't care for it at first, but later grew to enjoy it. You can give it another try this summer - NBC has been airing multiple episode reruns on Thursday nights.



Comments]]> Fri, 14 Jul 2006 00:24:00 EST http://www.partialobserver.com/programnotes/permalink.cfm?blogid=276 'Last Comic Standing' returns to form http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/ProgramNotes/~3/8rmtJ31greY/permalink.cfm http://www.partialobserver.com/programnotes/permalink.cfm?blogid=273 It's rare for a series to un-jump the shark. NBC's 'Last Comic Standing' prooved to be solid summer fare its first two seasons, but then collapsed under a too-soon, ill-conceived Season Three (Season One vs. Season Two). After giving it a rest, the show is back with new host Anthony Clark, a good cast, and an interesting setting for the "house": the former luxury liner Queen Mary II. All is forgiven.

Unfortunately, it's a shortened season, with two comics getting knocked off each week during only three weeks of 'head-to-head-to-head' competition. America votes for their favorite starting next week. NBC's timidity is unstandable after the Season that Should Not Have Been, but now that the show is back to form, the new express format feels way too short. My advice: bring it back for a normal-length Season Five, but not until next summer.

Once annoyance not limited to 'Last Comic,' but in fact commonplace among reality shows: going to the commercial break with scenes coming up after the commercial break. It's probably been proven that this tactic keeps some channel hoppers from straying too far, but it's really insulting to the regular viewers who plan to watch the whole thing anyway.

Whenever I see these "coming up" segments, I feel like I must be watching what the network considers a "low-brow" show. The more respected reality shows do not do this ('Survivor', 'Amazing Race'), but 'Fear Factor', 'Wife Swap', and 'Treasure Hunters,' among many others, all work desperately to get us to keep watching after the break. And of course, 'American Idol' does it ad nauseum during the auditions. I suppose people are more prone to ditch a reality show mid-episode, but can you imagine if they did this with dramas? Coming up on 'Lost': Sawyer and Ana Lucia get it on in the jungle. Is it true love or a mind game? And later: Michael gets trigger-happy!



Comments]]> Tue, 11 Jul 2006 23:09:00 EST http://www.partialobserver.com/programnotes/permalink.cfm?blogid=273 Catch Pee-Wee's Playhouse on Adult Swim http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/ProgramNotes/~3/tEy2lr-G0ps/permalink.cfm http://www.partialobserver.com/programnotes/permalink.cfm?blogid=269 Considered one of the great children's programs that also appealed to adults, Pee-Wee Herman's Saturday morning classic comes to the Cartoon Network's popular late-night line-up (known as Adult Swim) this week, Monday - Thursday at 11:00 PM ET.

For some reason, I never caught it while it was on the air, and then Pee-Wee's whole career-killing adult theater incident occurred, but I plan to check it out this time around. This isn't the first time Adult Swim has ventured away from animation - the quirky programming recently ran a couple of weeks of the awful Saturday morning sit-com 'Saved by the Bell' in a sort of so-bad-it's-good tribute.

The popularity of 'Family Guy' on Adult Swim, along with strong DVD sales, managed to bring about new episodes of the canceled Fox show. And 'Futurama', a long-time Adult Swim staple, is also making a return with new episodes for Comedy Central in the near future. Is this the start of a comeback for Pee-Wee?



Comments]]> Mon, 10 Jul 2006 11:40:00 EST http://www.partialobserver.com/programnotes/permalink.cfm?blogid=269 'Treasure Hunters' misses the mark, but makes for adequate summer fare http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/ProgramNotes/~3/BY16ckikmh4/permalink.cfm http://www.partialobserver.com/programnotes/permalink.cfm?blogid=239 'Treasure Hunters'
NBC, Mondays, 9:00 EDT
(two-hour premiere, Sunday, June 18)

Among the new summer programming offered so far, only 'Treasure Hunters' has sparked an interest, and while it doesn't rise to the quality of 'The Amazing Race,' the show it most emulates, it could be engaging enough for a summer reality fix. I prefer reality shows in the summer, when I expect, and sometimes seek out, lighter fare from my TV. You may recall that both 'Survivor' and 'American Idol' debuted during the summer - and somehow those shows seemed more fun back then. 'Treasure Hunters' is not likely to break out as a summer phenomenon, but it still beats 'Fear Factor'.

'Treasure' is a race among ten teams of three to find hidden treasure of some kind (we're not told what it is). Like 'Amazing Race', each team is comprised of players with some pre-existing relationship - ex-CIA employees, 'geniuses', graduate students, to name a few. They must travel about the world following a series of clues and puzzles. One team is eliminated at the end of each round.

What's to like about 'Treasure Hunters':

  • Like 'Race', it features a variety of locations.
  • Unlike 'Race', we don't have to witness every flight connection and other travel details
  • Each task involves puzzle solving, bringing an intellectual element often missing in other similar shows.
  • It began with two groups of five teams in very different locations, each unaware that there were five more teams competing. That twist was revealed to the players at the end of the first hour of the premiere, but it was a nice idea.

What's not to like:

  • In-your-face product placement. We're hit over the head with them right off the bat - Motorola phones, Ask.com, VISA, Genworth Financial. This make 'Survivor's' product placement look subtle. Cast members are often running about wearing Ask.com t-shirts.
  • Casting: can't say I've taken to any of the teams yet. No standouts.
  • The video phone messages featuring the show's host, played for the teams after they complete a task, seem a little hokey, but it is a fairly clever way to communicate with both the teams and viewers.
  • It's just not original enough.


Comments]]> Sun, 18 Jun 2006 23:56:00 EST http://www.partialobserver.com/programnotes/permalink.cfm?blogid=239 Season Finale Roundup http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/ProgramNotes/~3/LSFm0AfNIi8/permalink.cfm http://www.partialobserver.com/programnotes/permalink.cfm?blogid=202 The May Sweeps has our DVR working overtime, but I still can't keep up with all the big finales. Nevertheless, here are some thoughts on a selected few:

Spoiler Warning: if you haven't caught up with your TiVo, you might want to skip this post.

Prison Break

This freshman drama, originally conceived as a limited series, kept viewers consistently entertained as the escape plan became seemingly insurmountably foiled again and again, yet the series was far from perfect, failing to reach the heights of '24' or 'Lost'. Its finale stayed true to form: thrilling, but flawed. The season's slow, methodical pace made the actual prison break seem rushed. The Teabag/ax scene would have been more shocking had we not seen a similar situation in '24' a couple of years ago. I'm not totally confident that this show can successfully transition to a fugitive season, but these writers have managed to surprise me before.

24

I have to admit they had me concerned - okay, I downright panicked when it appeared that President Logan was the mastermind behind the day's horrific events. He was shown to be too stupid and indecisive to pull it off - but then there turns out to be a different mastermind. In the end, we got what may be the best '24' finale to date, and an intriguing setup for Day Six. The writers have pulled off another fine season, but then, if Jack had just played the recording for CTU over the phone, so much hassle could have been avoided... Sure, that's just the world of '24', but seriously, next season they have to do more than conveniently have Chloe open a socket every time Jack's in a bind.

The Office

The most intriguing continuing storyline in this solid comedy has been the awkward relationship between the mutually attracted Jim and Pam as Pam's wedding approaches. The finale, written by the show's main star Steve Carrell, brought the situation to a head when Jim confesses his love to Pam, leading to a season-ending kiss that will surely have a major impact on next season. It's always a little worrisome when a show's "sexual tension" is released because it's been handled poorly in the past (remember "Moonlighting"?), but in this case I think they know what they're doing.

Desperate Housewives

This season was seen by many, myself included, to be a dismal follow-up to last year's near-perfect season. While last year's season finale of 'Lost' was widely criticized for answering too few questions, last year's finale of 'Housewives' may have answered too many, leaving the show with little of interest in Season Two. I believe it was a mistake to kill off Rex - Bree's storyline this season was simply all-around depressing. If Rex had to be killed, at least make him the narrator of Season Two - Mary Alice's narration didn't make much sense with the Season One mystery resolved. There really wasn't much to like about the direction of any of the characters this season. Even so, I must say the Season Two Finale was very well done. The flashbacks were fun, and one senses a possible return to form next season.

Lost

Wow! I was thoroughly pleased with tonight's finale. Major questions answered to satisfaction, with many new, intriguing questions risen... Can't wait 'til next season.



Comments]]> Thu, 25 May 2006 00:42:00 EST http://www.partialobserver.com/programnotes/permalink.cfm?blogid=202 American Inventor: One big mess of a show http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/ProgramNotes/~3/46BvygXSFPk/permalink.cfm http://www.partialobserver.com/programnotes/permalink.cfm?blogid=181 'American Inventor' concludes this week (Thursday, 8:00-10:00 PM ET, ABC) as "America" votes for the "next great invention" and awards its inventor one million dollars. The final four is as follows:

  • The Double Traction Bike - invented by 19-year-old Francisco Patino. It's a bike with an additional seat near the handlebars and a set of pedals for that rider.
  • Word Ace - an educational electronic spelling game from inventor/teacher Ed Hall.
  • Receiver's Training Pole - a body attachment that helps young football players learn how to properly catch a football. Erik Thompson, inventor.
  • Spherical Safety Seat - a (large) car seat for infants that rotates in a collision so that the child is perpendicular to the impact force. Invented by Janusz Liberkowski, and inspired after his daughter's death in a car accident.

See anything you want to run out and buy? I think I can confidently guess that most of you would answer "no." The show has failed in more ways than one.

It sounded interesting at first. Who doesn't like to see cool new inventions? Unfortunately for the judges, producers, and viewers, there were slim pickings from the get-go. Serious inventors don't go on reality shows to see their concept become a real product. That left a whole bunch of struggling amateurs and seriously deluded crack-pots. Oh, how they loved to parade the kooks and their wacky brain-children in front of the camera. Add some goofy music, have the judges belittle and humiliate the inventors (a la co-creator Simon Cowell), and everyone has a good laugh, right? Nope. I was embarrassed for those early-round rejects.

We all waited with bated breath to see what would come after Round One. After all, each inventor brought only one idea. Would we just see them present it all over again, or would we see something more interesting? Turned out to be the former. We saw the same pitches over and over and over again. Each episode seemed to be a clip show. If you add up all the footage aired - and the show aired for two hours the past several weeks - I'm sure that over half of the show was repeated. Even the first hour of the "2-hour finale" is a recap of the past four shows.

And that's not all... The judges were consistently inconsistent. One week they're complaining about all the sob stories, then next week that seems to be exactly what they're looking for. First they want earth-shaking big concepts, next they fawn over a bowl attachment that hides fruit pits and nut shells. Their criteria was all over the place. To be fair, they had a pretty difficult task. People were presenting all kinds of crap - how do you compare the worthiness of a bathroom stall door clip with a new type of shovel that makes it easy to fill sand bags?

Furthermore, when it came down to the Final Twelve, they used a very odd system to cut them down to the Final Four: Each of the four judges acted as a mentor to three finalists, gave them $50,000 to further develop their product, and ultimately picked one of the three to move on. It was patently unfair (pun intended). What if two or three of the best ideas of the twelve were in one of the four groups? Too bad - only one moves on. (Of course, it's not unlike the NCAA tournament, in which the four best teams in the nation could all theoretically be in the same bracket.)

I had hoped for a much better show. While it did provoke thoughts about what makes a good invention, and what kinds of inventions have broad marketability, the show was more interested in showcasing the emotions of these inventors. It would have been much more interesting to see teams of engineering students come up with solutions to problems in competition.

Who should win the grand prize and be crowned the American Inventor? I honestly don't care, but they might as well give it to the safety-conscious car seat guy.



Comments]]> Wed, 10 May 2006 23:24:00 EST http://www.partialobserver.com/programnotes/permalink.cfm?blogid=181 My Current Top Five http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/ProgramNotes/~3/6kugfhP-PEY/permalink.cfm http://www.partialobserver.com/programnotes/permalink.cfm?blogid=177 The following are the five shows currently offered on broadcast and cable networks that I most look forward to watching each week:

  1. "Lost" (ABC) - The best show on TV. For my taste, it's nearly flawless entertainment. A lot of people get frustrated with the trickle of answers against the onslaught of questions the show raises, but I'm much more irritated with the trickle of new episodes. I'm not alone - why else would there be a website called islostarepeat.com? I'd much prefer a "Prison Break"-style three-month intermission than the sporadic new airings we got this season. Of course, all will be forgiven if this month's sweeps episodes live up to last year's.
  2. "Battlestar Galactica" (Sci-Fi Channel) - In terms of quality, it's right up there with "Lost", but the grim storyline is not for everyone. The Season Two finale that aired in March has everyone's head spinning, and not all fans are happy. It was a remarkably bold and risky move to advance the storyline one whole year, but these writers have earned my trust. I might miss the setting of the first two seasons, but I expect to enjoy this new one.
  3. "Doctor Who" (Sci-Fi Channel) - This update of the classic British series was a little uneven early on in this first season, but it found its footing. Fans of the old show, myself included, have been easily won over, and it just won Best Drama in the BAFTA Awards (the British Emmy equivalent).
  4. "24" (Fox) - Yes, I was very concerned about a certain plot twist a few weeks ago, but I'm over it. At least we now know that Logan is not the mastermind we knew he was incapable of being. Plausibility has never been "24's" biggest strength, but it delivers the thrills like no other show.
  5. "My Name is Earl"/"The Office" (NBC) - It's a tie! Okay, I cheated, but these two comedies air back-to-back, and I can't bear to think of one without the other. Consistently funny, with no studio audiences. While they can both go over-the-top on occasion, there is a level of sophistication that is generally not present in traditional sitcoms.

Other contenders: 'The Amazing Race,' 'Prison Break'
On the outs: 'Desperate Housewives', 'Survivor'



Comments]]> Mon, 08 May 2006 23:34:00 EST http://www.partialobserver.com/programnotes/permalink.cfm?blogid=177 Like your TV on DVD? Here's the site for you. http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/ProgramNotes/~3/HjetM651Ku0/permalink.cfm http://www.partialobserver.com/programnotes/permalink.cfm?blogid=163 It's been a busy week, hence the lack of posts, but I'll take a moment here to plug TVShowsOnDVD.com. It's a good resource for upcoming releases up to three or four months in advance, and the news section (featured on the homepage) is frequently updated with DVD extra info and artwork on upcoming releases. I suggest subscribing to the RSS feed to keep up to date because they often post a heads up on a release before it is officially announced. With so many shows still coming out on DVD, it's a site worth checking out often.



Comments]]> Sat, 29 Apr 2006 00:40:00 EST http://www.partialobserver.com/programnotes/permalink.cfm?blogid=163 Jack Bauer could break kill record this season. http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/ProgramNotes/~3/RnJWBxOi6TY/permalink.cfm http://www.partialobserver.com/programnotes/permalink.cfm?blogid=147 An invaluable service is provided at www.bauercount.com: a running tally of Jack Bauer's kills on each season of '24'. This season marks the most Bauer-inflicted deaths within 24 hours since recording his personal best of 44 in last year's Day Four. Through last Monday's Episode 18, Bauer has killed 32 people this season. Most of his victims, of course, are nameless 'rogue agents' and such, but will the season culminate with his assassination of President Logan? Stayed tuned.



Comments]]> Wed, 19 Apr 2006 00:30:00 EST http://www.partialobserver.com/programnotes/permalink.cfm?blogid=147 Has '24' jumped the shark? http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/ProgramNotes/~3/vjhS-nTZiTk/permalink.cfm http://www.partialobserver.com/programnotes/permalink.cfm?blogid=134 Warning: the following commentary contains plot details of the April 10th episode of '24'. Reader discretion is advised.

Don't worry, I'm still a fan, but recent events on '24' have shaken my confidence in the '24' writing staff. The show has always been a field day for nit-pickers, but the overall storytelling has been so solid that it's been easy to lovingly brush all those plot conveniences aside. Now, however, the revelation of President Logan's involvement in the terrorism scheme strains credulity like never before in the history of Jack Bauer's Very Long Days (and that's saying something). I had delighted in Gregory Itzin's portrayal of this scarily incompetent Commander-in-Chief, but it was all to set up an unthinkable twist: he's one of the bad guys (albeit unintentionally).

Sure, it makes for quite the compelling task for Jack, who must now bring down the most powerful man in the world with the help of only four other people, but the writers have transformed him from a believable twit into an unbelievable twit. To be fair, I have not gone through every scene with Logan thus far this season to analyze whether or not he could be in cahoots with Cummings and Henderson while panicking as the events unfold. I don't doubt that the writers could justify all of his motives, but it all just feels like an attempt to top themselves - to pull off the biggest twist yet on a show known for mind-blowing twists.

I haven't given up on this season despite all this and the season's incomprehensible plot, but Logan's Betrayal would have been easier to swallow had it not been accompanied by the following:

- excessive reliance on magical technology (for example, a device that allows Jack to bypass alarm systems (why even write that in?), far-fetched satellite tracking, and Cloe's ability to bypass anything).

- bulletproof glass at the bank. Surely, this isn't standard for small bank branches.

- the meaningless death of the bank manager. Why? When Edgar died and the world grieved, the producers explained that it was necessary to keep viewers on edge, believing that any character could be killed at any time. Then Tony died, then Linn McGill - okay, not so meaningless, but

- Kim's CTU visit coinciding with the gas attack. Had the timing NOT been a coincidence, it would have been credible.

Oh, I could go on, but I won't - I just had to get that off my chest. Next week, it's back to suspending my disbelief. Go Jack! This just in: Kiefer Sutherland signs on for three more seasons of '24'. There's also a rumor that next season will be set in London. Wouldn't that be a nice change? This season may have jumped the shark, but there's still hope for the series.



Comments]]> Tue, 11 Apr 2006 00:25:00 EST http://www.partialobserver.com/programnotes/permalink.cfm?blogid=134 Spielberg and Burnett to create 'On the Lot' http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/ProgramNotes/~3/MiXppC26dps/permalink.cfm http://www.partialobserver.com/programnotes/permalink.cfm?blogid=130 Here's something I don't say too often these days: "I'm looking forward to this reality show." Steven Spielberg is teaming up with 'Survivor' producer Mark Burnett for 'On the Lot'. Each week, teams will produce a short film in the 'genre of the week'. We'll see them struggle with the challenge of putting it all together in a relatively short time. The winner gets a studio contract. The series, to air on Fox next fall, will bear some similarity to the 'American Idol' format, according to the Associated Press:

The films will be shown before a studio audience and panel of judges to include a movie executive, film critic and guests. TV viewers will decide which film is the loser and the team member who directed it will be out of the contest _ a new twist on the term "director's cut."

Burnett's shows tend to be repetitious, but the production values are always top-notch, and hopefully Spielberg's involvement will keep the show fresh. One report I came across (which I'm hoping is inaccurate) said that the show will air twice per week, a la 'Idol.' I can't stand it when a show demands more than one hour of my time per week.

The concept is intriguing. We'll get a rare glimpse into the film-making process, see what works and what doesn't, and by the end, we might have seen the start of a brilliant directing career. And maybe not. We'll find out in the fall.



Comments]]> Mon, 10 Apr 2006 00:01:00 EST http://www.partialobserver.com/programnotes/permalink.cfm?blogid=130