For information about upcoming episodes of the show, look here. For all my stories on "Supernatural," look here.

Perhaps pressure from the network or fear of a fan backlash over splitting the boys up for more than one episode led to the quick reunion. And I fully admit that it might have been hard to pull off multiple episodes without the show's leads working together.

(Also, if we're comparing seasons, Season 4 introduced Castiel, which was a great move, and it also had the mystery regarding the exact nature of Dean's divine mission. Those things really amped up the tension in Season 4, as did the further explorations of the Winchester family mythology.) 

Regarding Season 5, I guess what I'm trying to say is, I feel like the show went from A (the boys with serious trust and anger issues between them, issues that had developed over years) to C (the boys getting along fairly well and working together with little or no friction) without showing me the intervening B (the boys work out the serious problems that came up between them and figure out what growing they need to do as individuals).

• Be nice. To further quote from Alan Sepinwall's Rules for Commenting: "This is an opinion blog, and a place where people can and should argue passionately for their point of view. But there's a difference between arguing with passion and arguing with hostility. If you can't find a way to express your viewpoint without insulting other commenters, or getting strident and self-righteous -- say, equating your opinion with fact, and deriding other people for not seeing the truth of your words -- then either tone down your words until they're more respectful to other people, or don't comment." Read the whole thing. Those rules apply here.   
• Absolutely no Samgirl-Deangirl fangirl nonsense. I'm not going to explain what this is. We all know what it is. It's possible to critique individual episodes or indeed the creative direction of the show in an intelligent fashion without becoming hysterical about how the writers have ruined Sam, Dean, the show and/or Western Civilization. Alice Jester's post on Sam and Dean, their Infamous Apologies and the nature of family squabbling says it all. As a fan, if you're not coming from the place that Alice is, or someplace in that neighborhood, go elsewhere to rant.
• No comments over 500 words.
• Please, please don't mention any spoilers of any kind. Speculation is fine, actual spoilers are not, even little ones. 
• Enjoy this. I know, everything I wrote above sounds so strict and uptight! And I'm sorry for that (and again, it's aimed at the few people who don't already abide by these guidelines instinctively). But if we can't make this commenting atmosphere enjoyable, then there's no point in doing it.
• Some other relevant info: I read and approve all comments before they are posted. Comments posted Thursday night won't show up until Friday morning. And since commenting typically continues over the weekend, you may see a lag time between when you post your comment and when you see it appear here.
• If you see typos, please be kind when you point them out, and I'll clean them up as soon as I can.

I've put the photo and the episode summary below in case you don't want to see the circumstances of the appearance by Sackhoff, who is most famous for playing Kara "Starbuck" Thrace on "Battlestar Galactica" and is a series regular on the upcoming season of "24."

Her "Big Bang" scene promises to be pretty fun. One of the show's characters is pretty much living the fanboy dream in that episode.

Sackhoff isn't the only "Battlestar" alum to appear on CBS this month: On the Nov. 16 "Two and a Half Men," Tricia Helfer plays Gail, Chelsea's hot college roommate, who comes for a visit after a bad breakup. Charlie (Charlie Sheen) is pretty much like Baltar on "Battlestar": So many hot ladies around make him a little mental. 

Another Helfer photo and the Sackhoff picture are below.

Here is summary of "The Vengeance Formulation," the Nov. 23 episode of "The Big Bang Theory": "After he's humiliated on National Public Radio, Sheldon vows to destroy Kripke, while Wolowitz tries not to destroy his new relationship with Bernadette. "Battlestar Galactica" star Katee Sackhoff appears as herself, offering Wolowitz some relationship advice."

And what an intimate setting Wolowitz and Sackhoff have for their conversation! As "Big Bang Theory" co-creator Chuck Lorre told USA Today, "We should all have a conscience that looks like Katee Sackhoff."

CBS does appear to like the "Battlestar" folks. Michael Trucco also appeared on "Big Bang," as did a Cylon toaster recently (check out this post for a funny clip of Sheldon making Cylon toast).

At this rate I'm hoping that Edward James Olmos puts in an appearance at McLaren's, the bar on "How I Met Your Mother." Who's with me?

So in a few days I'll be posting a "Mo Answers Your TV-related questions" column. I thought I'd give folks another chance to submit questions here.

Please make sure they're TV-related. You don't want me giving you life advice. OK, maybe you do, but not on these here Internets. That sort of thing is better done with a wineglass or coffee mug in hand.

In any case, don't let the rather blah headline make you think I'm not excited about the return of "Party Down." The show, which returns to Starz in April, is a delight. I anxiously await more adventures with the cater-waiters of the Party Down crew.

The one downside to the new season is that Jane Lynch's new gig on "Glee" -- where she's consistently one of the best things about the show -- prevents her from being a series regular on the second season of "Party Down." She will make a guest appearance in Season 2 of the Starz show as the perennially optimistic Constance Carmel. 

"Glee" fans, when the first season of "Party Down" comes out on DVD, get your hands on the "Party" DVDs as soon as you can. If you like the acerbic with of "Glee," you'll probably enjoy the smart and skillful comedy of "Party Down," which comes from "Veronica Mars" creator Rob Thomas, John Enbom, Paul Rudd and Dan Etheridge.

A Starz rep said that no release date has been set for the Season 1 DVDs, but that set should come out around the time Season 2 premieres, so I'd guess you can look for it around March or so. I'll keep you posted if I get a release date for the "Party Down" DVD set.

Not that anyone could replace Lynch, but the show will add a series regular so that the Party Down crew isn't short-handed. In Season 2, Megan Mullally of "Will & Grace" will play "middle-aged refugee Lydia Dunfree, who leaves a small town life to move to Hollywood where her 13-year old daughter Escapade hopes to make it as an actress." Escapade. I love that.

Returning cast members include "Ken Marino as Ron Donald, the aggressively pious leader of the Party Down Catering company; Adam Scott as Henry Pollard, the one-time actor who has returned to the life of cater-waiter; Martin Starr as Roman DeBeers, the team’s self-proclaimed sci-fi visionary and all-purpose intellectual; Ryan Hansen as Kyle Bradway, who’s an actor, model and front-man for an earnest alt-rock band when not working Hollywood parties; and Lizzy Caplan as Casey Klein, a pretty, smart, funny, and insecure comedienne who happens to make ends meet as a cater-waiter."

I'm very curious to know how Ron's Soup Or Crackers franchise fared -- if indeed it ever got off the ground.

Kristen Bell will guest star again as the taskmaster who leads the crew from Valhalla, a rival catering team. Other Season 2 guest stars include J.K. Simmons, Joey Lauren Adams, Steve Guttenberg and Christopher Mintz-Plasse.

No Paul Rudd yet? Darn. I do hope Rudd, one of the show's creators, manages to fit in a guest appearance on the show one of these days.

One more thought: If you haven't been watching "Parks and Recreation," do watch Thursday's outing if you can. Mullally does a great job as Ron Swanson's witchy ex-wife, Tammy. I hope the character returns to torment Leslie Knope (Amy Poehler) and Ron Swanson (Nick Offerman) soon.

In any case, this show has improved enormously from its rocky start. I'm still not convinced the show is using Paul Schneider, Chris Pratt and Rashida Jones to their full potential (story lines involving those characters tend to be weaker), but the characters played by Poehler, Aziz Ansari, Offerman and Aubrey Plaza grow more amusing by the week.

Though Mullally's quite entertaining in her guest role on the NBC comedy, the best thing about this week's "Parks and Recreation" is that it's a showcase for Offerman, who is in real life married to Mullally and whose work as Swanson is a continual treat.

Starz's Season 2 "Party Down" press release is below.

I'd thought about reading verbatim excerpts from the most angry/vitriolic comments or emails I've ever received via the Watcher site, but another idea had occurred to me. 

I could compile a List of Things TV Is Never Allowed to Do Again, Ever. Here are a few suggestions off the top of my head to get things started:

• No one is ever allowed to write a scene in which things go very badly and then characters say, "That went well."
• No one is ever allowed to write a scene in which an African-American or Hispanic police lieutenant says, "Detective, you're out of line!"
• No one is ever allowed to create a show in which Hispanic characters are only maids and gardeners. Come on!
• No one is ever allowed to create a show in which the lead male character gets all the funny/charming lines and the lead female character is humorless and uptight. Not. Amusing. Ever.
• No writer is allowed to let characters start talking about an interesting and complex issue or situation, and then end the scene abruptly with one character saying, "It's complicated." Yes, I know that. I'm not dumb. How about plumbing those complexities instead of tossing out those two words and having characters brood at each other for a second, then cut to commercial? 
• No one is allowed to create a show involving anyone named Gosselin.
• No show is allowed to tease, very strongly, that two characters are attracted to each other and may get together and use that chemistry to get tons of press coverage from that relationship and then ... never actually get the characters together or get them together so late in the show's run that it's entirely unsatisfying. Call this the Rule of Gilmore.
• I could go on, but you get the idea.

Leave your suggestions for the List of Things TV Is Never Allowed to Do Again, Ever below in the comment area.

UPDATE: I've added more pictures below from the Nov. 12 and the Nov. 19 episodes.

I've put the picture a few paragraphs down because what Sheppard's character is holding... could be considered a spoiler. Dun-dun-dun!

"Abandon All Hope...," the episode in which Sheppard appears, is the final "Supernatural" episode of 2009. And now we know exactly how long we'll have to go Winchester-less: The show will return Jan. 14 with new episodes.

I'm looking forward to seeing what Sheppard (who played Romo Lampkin on "Battlestar Galactica" as well as a billion other roles on TV) will bring to that "Supernatural" outing. (And be aware that, as part of the Mark Sheppard Full Employment Act of 2009, he will also appear on the Nov. 12 "CSI," which hosts Part 3 of an all-"CSI" crossover extravaganza.)

For a few details on "Abandon All Hope...," look below.

But before you get to those (mild) spoilers, here are a couple of thoughts on "Changing Channels," Thursday's episode of the CW drama (and I've made this brief writeup as non-spoilery as I can, but there are a few little facts about what occurs in Thursday's "Supernatural").

Wait, did I write "CW drama"? Well, when you tune in to the episode, you may think you're watching a sitcom. The comedic episode finds the Winchester brothers trapped in a variety of TV formats (one scenario has them meeting a guy called "Dr. Sexy." I'll just leave you to ponder that). I'd love to drop hints about the other scenarios but it'll be more fun to just see them unfold. 

Rest assured, the whole thing is quite amusing, and some scenarios were so funny that I had to stop the DVD that the CW sent so I could get the guffaws out of my system. The opening credits to the episode are still making me giggle. But as Fancast's Matt Mitovich says in his write-up of the episode, some interesting dramatic developments transpire in "Changing Channels" as well.

For pictures and an episode summary for "Changing Channels" and for the Nov. 12 episode, which has the boys traveling to a "Supernatural" fan convention, look here. Don't forget to come back to this site Friday morning so we can all discuss "Changing Channels." In that Friday post, I'll also share a few thoughts on the excellent Oct. 29 episode of the show, which aired while I was on vacation.

OK, the picture of Sheppard in "Supernatural" is below.

In "Abandon All Hope...," which was written by Ben Edlund and directed by Phil Sgriccia, Sam, Dean and Castiel "track down the Colt and head off to find Lucifer to send him back to Hell," according to a CW summary. "It’s a hunters’ reunion when the crew joins forces with Bobby (Jim Beaver), Ellen (guest star Samantha Ferris) and Jo (guest star Alona Tal) for what could be their last night on Earth."

In the episode, Sheppard plays Crowley, a pivotal crossroads demon. And that gun in his hand sure looks like the Colt to me.

Update: There are other guest stars in the episode. You'll see who they are if you scroll down through the photos below.

As noted above, "Abandon All Hope..." is the final "Supernatural" episode of 2009. The show will return Jan. 14.

Two months without angels, demons or Winchesters. Talk about hell. 

Update: I don't know when this scene will air, and it does contain a spoiler about an upcoming guest star. But hey, check out Castiel and... this guy! (CW insider LilMissX posted some behind-the-scenes Castiel pictures on her Twitter feed.)

Update to the update (spoilers ahoy!): That photo mentioned in the previous paragraph comes from "Abandon All Hope." More photos from that episode are below.

First up: Some photos from "The Real Ghostbusters," in which the Winchesters visit a Supernatural fan convention with writer/prophet Chuck (Rob Benedict):

Next up: Photos from "Abandon All Hope..."

Sponsored Link: Amazon's Supernatural Store

If you've seen any of the ABC promos for "V," you've probably seen a glimpse of one of those ships hovering over a city, or you may have seen a commercial in which the aliens' alluring spokeswoman says that the folks in those gigantic ships come in peace. They're here to help. Everything's going to be fine.

Sure it is!

Of course, as we all know from decades of sci-fi television and films, alien invasions rarely go well. Yet no matter how many times that scenario goes awry, we can't get enough of that oldie-but-goodie "they're here!" story. And as we saw over the summer with the TV miniseries "Torchwood: Children of Earth" and the film "District 9," in the right hands, it's possible to re-tell that clash-of-species story with verve and relevance.

So is "V" any good? That's a question I've gotten frequently in the past few months. There's a slight edge of fear to the queries, as if people were almost prepared to accept the idea that those who've re-made the 1980s TV series got it all wrong.

(And let's face it, we sci-fi fans are a frequently disappointed lot. ABC hasn't quite managed to quite recapture the magic of "Lost" with any of its subsequent genre-flavored offerings. "FlashForward" still seems like a show that is more about its concept than its characters. And the other notable fall genre offering, Syfy's "Stargate Universe," is a boring, poorly plotted, lamentably sexist mess.)

Re "V," here's the positive news: The pilot for this drama is good. I have a few quibbles with it -- some of the character drama is a bit clunky -- but overall, I found the first hour of the show to be solidly entertaining and suitably suspenseful.

But here's the caveat: I have no idea whether "V" will keep up this level of quality as the show progresses. It's relatively easy to introduce a powerful menace and rachet up the tension about what that mysterious entity might do. It's harder to start doling out answers in a satisfying way, build a compelling mythology and -- most important of all -- create characters whose fate actually matters to the audience.

And despite the show's good pace and the fine performances from actors such as Morena Baccarin ("Firefly") as the smooth-talking alien leader, Joel Gretsch ("The 4400") as a doubting priest, Scott Wolf ("The Nine") as an ambitious journalist and Elizabeth Mitchell ("Lost") as a federal investigator with suspicions about the newcomers, there are a few reasons for concern.

First of all, ABC has given the show an unusual schedule: It will air four episodes during November, then bring the show back in March, after the Olympics. What if "V" doesn't do well this fall and never finishes out its run? Well, first of all, let's not get ahead of ourselves: Even though it has struggled creatively, "FlashForward" is still on the air and doing OK in the ratings. So "V" may do well enough to re-invade our TVs this spring.

But if "V" is canceled, and if we've invested in the show, we'll probably feel like Charlie Brown after Lucy takes the football away (fans of ABC's "Daybreak" will recall that "Foiled again!" feeling). And we'll hope that ABC puts the remaining episodes up on its Web site in a timely fashion.

The other causes for concern don't have me all that worried, but they're worth noting. Production on "V" was shut down for a time so that the writers could fine-tune upcoming scripts. That's a fairly common occurrence, especially for first-year shows, and the break may have given "V" the time it needed to find its feet.

Also, "V" has a new showrunner: Scott Rosenbaum ("The Shield," "Chuck") has taken over that position, a Warner Bros. TV representative confirmed. Writer Jeffrey Bell, who'd been working on "V," is expected to leave, although the previous showrunner and executive producer, Scott Peters ("The 4400") is expected to remain on the "V" staff and write for the show. (USA Today broke the news about Rosenbaum joining "V" Tuesday). I'm a fan of the shows that Rosenbaum worked on previously, so I'm hoping this is good news.

I'm also hoping that the break -- and this is purely speculation on my part -- didn't give nervous executives a chance to meddle creatively and water down the genre aspects of the show. That would be disappointing, to say the least. This is a show about aliens coming to Earth, for goodness' sake. When a drama backs away from the freaky concept at its core -- as "Dollhouse" did it its early days -- it ends up satisfying no one.

Yes, "V" has to be a fairly mainstream character drama in order to work on a broadcast network (and let's hope it is a more subtle one going forward), but to stifle the mythological storytelling or tamp down the political and cultural allegories on the show would hamstring "V" and turn it into just another generic ABC prime-time drama. Nobody needs "What About Brian" with space ships.

Part of the message of "V" is that it can be wrong to blindly place one's trust in any entity or person; handled wrongly, that message could start to feel like an anvil to the skull. But, as some of the show's characters realize, it's also a mistake to make snap judgments based on appearances.

So I'll close by saying that, at first glance, "V" seems quite compelling. But we'll have to wait to see whether the show's intentions and ambitions live up to our expectations.

Roger: He seems to have exchanged one demanding daughter for another. And he may be realizing that losing Mona and gaining Jane wasn't such a great deal. She locked herself in a bathroom at one point like a disaffected teenager. And Roger told Bert Cooper to "keep an eye on her," as if she was an 8-year-old child. And Roger was right about Jane's gift to Margaret -- it was too much, and Jane should have consulted him. Instead, Jane acted like a spoiled brat when confronted with her mistake.

I think Roger may have finally realized -- and let me know if you agree or not -- that Joan is "The One." He wanted to talk to her after the assassination -- he could be serious with her and she understood why the event upset him so much. And Joan immediately saw that the jokester Roger had nothing funny to say about this event.

Joan's the only one who really sees behind Roger's light-hearted, cynical facade. Mona may have seen that serious side of him too, but that couple's time had passed. I just love Joan and Roger together, even on the phone. They have a bond that seems so real and unbreakable. But alas, they're both married to others -- people who don't really get them in any essential way. Sigh. 

By the way, I loved that look between Don and Roger at the wedding. It was quite cryptic, but there was the faintest hint that Don was enjoying the fact that this expensive event was so obviously a bust. Roger's bonhomie just about made the Derby Day party work, but even Roger recognized his magic wouldn't enliven this somber wedding.

Perhaps the look was also a recognition that, despite everything, these two operators have some kind of bond, maybe even a shred of sympathy for each other. I don't quite know, I could be reading that glance wrong. But I'm curious about where things will go with Don and Roger. I think a lot of us are hoping they'll band together to take over SC, but, as appears to be the case with Don and Betty, there may be too much history there. Maybe Don and Roger are past the point of making peace with each other.

Some other thoughts on the episode:

*From remarks Matthew Weiner has made, it seemed as though "Mad Men" might deal with the death of JFK in a glancing, elliptical way. Weiner told Alan Sepinwall that he didn't pick 1963 because it would allow him to deal with JFK -- it sounded as though it wasn't necessarily his intent to dwell on it in great detail.

Of course JFK's death is an obvious landmark in that year, but he told Sepinwall that "if we do [deal with the assassination], it's going to be something different." I guess what was surprising about "The Grown-Ups" is that it wasn't really something different. That's not a criticism, just an observation.

"The Grown-Ups" dealt with JFK's death exactly as I would have predicted a show set in 1963 would have -- it took on that event in a big, in-depth way. That event was the catalyst for the entire episode, and the source of its themes of dependence, crisis and the pain of transitions.

So, in a way, the show did surprise me, by doing exactly what I thought it wouldn't do. Just as I thought the show would be true to its sometimes elliptical style and put off Betty confronting Don about the contents of the box, "Mad Men" had Betty confront Don about his secret drawer pretty quickly. The obvious choice was the surprising one, because often "Mad Men" makes the less obvious choice. In any case, I like being surprised, so the intense focus on JFK's death -- that was a surprise.

I thought it would have an impact, but I also thought it would be an offstage event, if you will. But here, it was front and center. That scene between Carla and Betty was telling, as were several other post-assassination moments. But the more I think about it, the more I think Betty seeing Oswald shot on live television was the turning point for her and for the episode. Betty's ideas about how her world worked were blown apart in that moment.

A man who was accused of assassinating the president was shot on live TV as Betty sat there in her bathrobe. "What is going on?" she cried. Don's revelations about his past may have, in that moment, seemed like small potatoes. That information changed Betty's life, but what she was witnessing was changing the world. And that's scary.

The tragedy did play a central role in the episode, but as with the Cuban Missile Crisis, the JFK assassination was used to shed light on the characters' inner lives and motivations. What was most important was how they reacted to this news.

Still, the amount of news footage we saw -- including the famous footage of Walter Cronkite almost losing his composure -- was surprising. It was there, I think, to show us the dawn of the modern media age.

We are all glued to the TV if something awful or huge happens, no matter how much (or how little) sense the talking heads on the box make. We just need those voices to be the grown-ups, to tell us that someone, somewhere, is making sense of the situation. The constant hum of those voices, that constant background chatter -- we hope that, in the aggregate, those voices will somehow reassure us that someone is on top of the situation, that the right information is being gathered, that it'll be OK.

Logically, we know that's a fantasy -- senseless tragedies will always, in some way, be senseless, no matter how many words are spoken on the subject. Yet we turn to the voices, again and again. And I'm sure I'm not the only one to ponder the fact that we now have many more voices speaking 24 hours a day about the news -- yet we feel less reassured than ever.

All that said, Sally may now trust the TV more than she trusts her parents. The adults are lying to her -- her father tells her "nothing" happened when Oswald was shot, and she knows he's not telling the truth. She knows he's shielding her from reality (which is a common and sometims commendable parental instinct).

But from now on, the TV will have a role in American life that it didn't have before -- it'll be the "hearth" that Betty's designer talked about. Harry doesn't know how safe his job is. Our dependence on television has only grown since that awful day in 1963.

*Henry Francis offers to marry Betty -- based on what? He knows she can be a fickle woman who doesn't really know what she wants. And they've only been in each other's presence a few times. In some ways, I just don't get why he'd want to marry her -- that character seems smarter and more jaded than that. But perhaps he sees himself as rescuing Betty, which plays into her fantasy of being rescued. Perhaps both of them, when it comes down to it, are children playing fairy-tale roles. (Note: On further review, I took the word "child-like" out of the second sentence of this item. I do think that's no longer the best adjective to describe Betty, but I would still say that some of her actions lack a certain maturity.)

*The scene of Betty and Henry meeting recalled, for me, Betty's parking-lot talk with Glen in an earlier season. She's matured some from that moment, but as her rescue-fantasy indicates, not all that much. I feel she still has a lot of heartbreak ahead of her; her road will not get easier, I predict.

*At least in that car scene, we got a real, big smile from Betty. They're so rare that I can't remember the last time she smiled like that.

*When Don kisses Betty on the dance floor, he has that "Dick Whitman" look of utter sincerity on his face. Really? That does nothing for her?

*There was at least one Roger zinger, when he urged the paltry number of wedding guests to eat both the prime rib and the fillet of sole. Goodness knows it was a horrible wedding reception, but nobody would go away hungry.

*I was glad there was a reference to Sal Romano. I want him back on the show!

*A couple of housekeeping notes: Sorry this post is up late. I didn't get home from a trip out of town until late Sunday and wrote this post Monday morning. I did enjoy my vacation, thanks! As always, please feel free to (kindly) point out any typos you see. Thanks in advance.

*Also, next week's post won't go up until Monday morning. Weiner is not sending that episode out to critics in advance, so I'll spend Sunday night watching the Season 3 finale twice and writing my thoughts. I hope to have that post up by noon Monday.

Sponsored Link: Amazon's Mad Men Store

Even when things weren’t going well for the Dillon Panthers, the high school football team he led with sternness and compassion,  Taylor (Kyle Chandler) still had excellent facilities and an extensive staff at his disposal. Money wasn’t really a problem for the Panthers, a perennial powerhouse in Texas football.

Of course, “Friday Night Lights” has always been about much more than football: This fine ensemble drama has used sports as a vehicle for telling nuanced stories about race, class and family. Though the Panthers, occasionally get their moments in the sun, Dillon is usually a place of reduced expectations and limited options.

So it comes as no surprise that the new season of “FNL” sees Taylor going through the kind of involuntary retrenching that many Americans are experiencing. The nice stadium, the lavish equipment budget and the extensive staff are gone. Thanks to redistricting and some maneuvering by his detractors, this season Taylor is coaching the East Dillon Lions, a poorly equipped and unskilled squad. 

You can judge Taylor's contentment level by how much he stalks around with his jaw clenched, and there's a lot of sideline stomping as the season begins. But as usual, Kyle Chandler makes the charismatic Taylor's frustration compelling. And the question of the season, as always, isn't limited to whether Taylor can make the team competitive. It's also about whether he can turn undisciplined boys into men. Dramatically speaking, it's all to the good that the coach has his work cut out for him.

Taylor's wife, Tami (Connie Britton), has her own set of challenges -- as principal of Dillon High School, she receives an avalanche of criticism about the redistricting (parents see East Dillon as a second-rate high school). As if that's not enough to deal with, prominent Panther boosters think they run the Panther football program. Despite her down-home friendliness, the shrewd Tami isn't about to allow that.  

It'll be interesting to see how "FNL" manages the post high-school era for several of its characters -- a transition that has often led to choppy, disjointed stories on other shows that have featured characters navigating those years. This season, both Tim Riggins (Taylor Kitsch) and Matt Saracen (Evanston's Zach Gilford) are still kicking around Dillon, where their prospects seem less than exciting.

"How does it feel to be the guy who used to be Tim Riggins?" a high schooler asks the former Panther star, who seems unmooored without Taylor's guidance.

Saracen decided to stay in Dillon and care for his grandmother rather than attend art school in Chicago, and dealing with the outcome that choice is proving difficult. But then Saracen's life, especially, has consisted of tough choices and a narrow range of options. Four seasons in, I still find myself wanting the world to give this hangdog kid a break.

Julie Taylor (Aimee Teegarden) and Landry (Jesse Plemons) are still in high school, and a new roster of young characters joins the cast this season. If a few of them prove as memorable as Riggins or Saracen, "FNL" will be in good shape.

The show certainly has a lot of ground to cover in its 13-episode fourth season (which is set to air next summer on NBC). This year, the challenge is to create fresh, interesting story lines for new and returning high school characters, integrate the post-high school crowd into the show and mix the stories of the East Dillon team with those of the Panther players. It’s a tall order, but in the early going, the show seems up to it.

Besides, haven’t we learned that “Friday Night Lights” is usually pretty good at pulling off the underdog win?

Photos: Kyle Chandler as Coach Eric Taylor; Taylor Kitsch as Tim Riggins; Panther fans. 

Sponsored Link: Amazon's Friday Night Lights Store

I’d been looking forward to “The League” (9:30 p.m. Central Thursday, FX; one star) which is set in Chicago and depicts the antics of a group of men in a fantasy football league.  My husband has been playing fantasy football for a decade and I could only imagine the humor to be mined from the obsession with stats and the delicious torture of picking the right roster of players each week.

But instead of heated conversations about minor rule changes or the amusing depiction of draft rituals, “The League” offers jokes about pornography and humorless wives (ha ha!). I wasn’t really prepared for a show this aggressively raunchy. And if I wanted jokes about shrill wives who deny their husbands sex or act inappropriately in unrealistic ways, I could have watched a lame traditional sitcom.

Unfortunately the male characters  on the show are almost as one-dimensional. All in all, it would be easier to give the macho, frat-house vibe a pass if the jokes were funny, but much of the humor in the first two episodes falls flat.

"I'm not saying a new name is easy to find." Don to Annabelle.

"I'm not going anywhere." Don/Dick to Betty.

"And who are you supposed to be?" Carlton to Don.

I find myself without a huge array of things to say about "The Gypsy and the Hobo." Not because it was uneventful -- far from it -- but because what happened in this terrific episode was so straightforward and unambiguous.

It centered on the truth. We saw Don finally telling Betty the truth (and what an enormous WOW those scenes were), Roger trying to get an old flame to see some hard truths, Joan soldiering on (literally) as she realizes the truth about what it means to be married to her nitwit of a husband.

As much as I love Joan and Roger, and as I was glad to see those characters get a good amount of screen time, not a lot can compete with Jon Hamm's performance as Don Draper in this episode. Someone give this man an Emmy. Now.

I got to this point with Mary McDonnell and Edward James Olmos on "Battlestar Galactica," with Edie Falco and James Gandolfini on "The Sopranos" and with Michael Chiklis and C.C.H. Pounder on "The Shield." At some point you just run out of adjectives to describe their superlative acting.

As was the case on those shows, the entire ensemble is so great every week that over time, I stopped commenting on their phenomenal skills. We just come to expect that they will be impressive every time. We get spoiled.  

Though we've come to expect great things from Hamm, the range of emotional states he nailed in this episode was extraordinary and worthy of the highest praise. Let's just go through the list of emotions that washed over Don as he entered his house and discovered his family unexpectedly there: Shock at their presence, a scrambling (and unsuccessful) attempt to go back to the car and get rid of Suzanne, wariness as he followed Betty into the den, anger as realized she was determined to confront him and fear as he realized what Betty knew.

Then, as he's often done in these heated situations, he tried to physically loom over her in order to intimidate her, and he tried defiance as one last attempt to preserve the Don facade (even though he knew by then his attempts to browbeat Betty would be futile).

And then you see something new breaking over his features: He becomes Dick Whitman -- a frightened boy who is petrified of being rejected once again. "You didn't have to look at my things," he breathed. He sounded like the frightened, abused kid some part of him still is.

That sequence of scenes between Don and Betty is one of the best pieces of writing in the history of "Mad Men." And it almost functioned as a meta-commentary on the show, given that Betty asked every question that viewers have asked since she found the box (Why did he even keep this stuff in the house? Who's Anna? Who are those people in the pictures? And so on.)

This wasn't the kind of elliptical writing that the show sometimes employs, but it was no less effective. Seeing these two people finally drop all their pretenses was as fascinating as it was unexpected. Last week's episode contained the bombshell of Betty finding the box. And rather than hanging on to that knowledge for weeks, she confronted him with it almost immediately. I honestly didn't see that coming, not this week anyway. I enjoy "Mad Men" most when it zigs when I expect it to zag.

Full praise to January Jones for holding her own in those scenes, which is no small feat. But let's face it, those scenes belonged to Hamm. As is the case with the actors mentioned above, Hamm can communicate his character's internal state eloquently even when there is no dialogue.

After the initial confrontation, we saw Don move into the kitchen. He was a gutted man. At this point, Don doesn't know if the safe, suburban life he worked so hard to create is over forever. (And it's an interesting side note the Don begins revealing his real truths to Betty in that kitchen -- just a few feet from where the first scene of the first episode of Season 3 began. Remember how, in that season premiere, we saw Don heating up milk for Betty and then, in a reverie, recalling his own birth?)

Betty was not cutting him any slack; she was waiting for him to pull his usual trick and leave. But now that Don/Dick has been discovered, he doesn't need to. Perhaps part of the reason Don staggered into the kitchen was because a weight had been lifted off him. He no longer has to keep all those secrets.

Much of "Mad Men" has depicted Don as trapped and hemmed in, but at that moment, when he finally begins telling Betty the truth, in some ways he seems freer than he's ever been. And thanks to Hamm's subtle work, there's an intriguing emotional core to Don in those scenes. There's a quality of sincerity in him we've rarely seen when those two characters are together.

He tells Betty his name is Donald Draper, but, in that moment, he seems more like Dick Whitman than he ever has -- around her, anyway. He's stopped playing a role. When he tells her he's surprised she ever loved him, that is Dick speaking. It's utterly poignant when he recalls Abigail's boyfriend, Uncle Mac. "He was nice to me," Don/Dick said. For some reason, I found that line so sad. He probably liked Uncle Mac because he didn't beat him or call him "whore child."

When Don/Dick recalled Adam's death, it was heartbreaking. Three years later, the guilt he feels about Adam's death finally comes pouring out, and it's devastating. Don's done some terrible things, but we see that he's also been carrying around an incredible amount of pain.

It's worth noting that, in his profession, Don Draper is the master of eliciting sympathy and using nostalgia to rather cynical ends, but in that bedroom, Dick wasn't playing on Betty's emotions. He was just telling her the truth about what he'd done and why he'd done it. He wasn't asking her to feel bad about his brother's suicide -- Don/Dick felt that was his fault -- but he couldn't let Adam disrupt what he had built for himself.

Despite all that Don had done to Betty over the years, how could she not feel compassion regarding what he'd gone through and what he'd given up?

The actors and the director used some kind of alchemy on those morning-after scenes; you could tell something was different between Don and Betty. They looked at each other with new eyes. They were solicitous of each other in a way they never had been. Perhaps it was just odd to see them look each other in the eye so frequently. You got the sense that they finally saw each other -- the other person was no longer just some prop in a facade. 

Don and Betty had been married 10 years earlier, but their marriage truly began on Halloween, 1963. They finally began to know each other as people, warts and all. Don may not know about Betty's extramarital forays and she may not know about the teacher -- but I hope neither party does find out. Does it really matter, at this point? I'd honestly like to see these two try to make a go of it.

Given that the Sixties are about to begin in earnest, perhaps I was expecting to see them explore new paths for themselves -- alone. But wouldn't it be interesting to see these two damaged people begin anew and forge a real relationship, even as society begins going through a series of upheavals and revolutions?

Question time: Given the Don and Roger we met in Season 1, who expected both men to be in functional marriages at the end of Season 3? Not me.

But both men had accepted what their lives were. And the theme, if there was one in the episode, was acceptance of the truth.

Roger's old flame, Annabelle, doesn't want to accept that her opportunity with him is gone. She doesn't want to accept that the name of her dog food is never going to be viable again (interestingly, she was told to give up that name, just as Don finally reclaimed Dick Whitman, a name he's spent years trying to escape).

Some truths can't be escaped, some names can't be redeemed, some mistakes can't be unmade. Joan's CreepRapistHusband can't simply undo all of his bad life choices by sticking "Captain" in front of his name. Annabelle can't simply pick things up with Roger more than two decades after breaking his heart. And she can't get consumers to buy her dog food by simply ignoring the fact that people react in revulsion to that brand.

"The Gypsy and the Hobo" explored who will accept the truth and why. Betty accepted Don's explanations, because he had no option at that point but to level with her. He had run out of other options (and he seemed glad to finally be able to unburden himself).

Annabelle finally had to accept that Roger loved his new wife and that she had missed her chance with him, but only after he repeatedly turned her down.

Joan. Oh Joanie. We still don't know where she stands regarding Captain Idiot. It was absolutely delightful to see her finally hit him in the head, but too bad it was only with a vase and not with tire iron. When will she finally tire of his towering narcissism and realize that she still has a chance at happiness, as long as she ditches him and his crazy schemes?

We still don't know quite where Joan is on the acceptance scale. She may still be making a go of it with Captain Idiot in future seasons. Or she may realize that he is dead weight who will only drag her down. She's still in the role-playing stage that Roger and Don were for so many years -- as they were, she is married to someone to whom she doesn't reveal her true self. Why would she bother? CreepRapistHusband will never know what a gem he has in Joan. Sigh.

We actually saw that role-playing begin with Don and Suzanne, as she looked at his face and told him how unhappy she thought he was. He closed up and gave her a line: "I'm happy now." And as she moved off, irritated at his inability to be honest with her, the magic started to dissipate. This was no longer as scorching affair but a relationship in which Don had begun guarding his real self and the other person had begun to find that tiresome.

Who knew that we'd end up feeling sorry for Miss Farrell? She'd been written so many ways all season that it was hard to get a handle on her. But her vulnerability in that final scene in which Don broke things off with her was beautifully played and heartbreaking. For some reason I felt awful for her that she feared for her job -- I suppose she didn't know if Betty would try to make trouble for her.

Poor girl. She really got crushed. In the end, she wasn't Miss Kookoo Stalkerpants, she was just a sweet, somewhat naive, somewhat unconventional girl who got emotionally crushed by an affair that was more intensely emotional than she expected it to be.

And she accepted the truth with dignity. There's nobility in that.

A few stray thoughts:

• Part of the reason to have a Roger story line, I think, was to make us recall why we liked the guy. He's been shoved to the sidelines for much of the season (which has been something of a mistake, in my view). In any case, if he and Don are to become allies in the coming Sterling Cooper storm, I think it was wise for of the show to give us some quality Roger time before then, so we can recall that he's much more than an occasionally crabby narcissist who has an exceptional way with one-liners.
• I have no inside knowledge of this [and please, DO NOT DISCUSS THE PREVIEWS FOR NEXT WEEK IN COMMENTS], but I'm guessing the next two weeks will center on big doings at Sterling Coo.
• A lovely callback to "The Hobo Code" this week, as we saw little Bobby dressed as a hobo for Halloween. The irony being, of course, that Don's idea of hobo-ing is cruising out of town for the weekend with a hot brunette. And that sort of thing is over now. Probably.
• A note on comments: I'm on vacation this week. There may be a longer-than-usual delay between when you post your comment and when you see it appear. Sorry about that.
• Please be kind about it but feel free to point out typos if you see any. Thanks.

A third season had been in some doubt, as Byrne has said in interviews that he finds the role (which he plays very well) quite challenging. That's understandable; his character is in almost every scene and much of his work involves reacting to and working through thorny issues with the sometimes challenging patients in his care.

The show is changing head writers again, as it has done every season so far. Anya Epstein of HBO’s “Tell Me You Love Me” and Danny Futterman (“Capote”) will take over from Season 2 showrunner Warren Leight.

The show goes into production early next year in New York.

HBO's press release on the renewal is below.

IN TREATMENT FOR THIRD SEASON, WITH PRODUCTION
TO START IN NEW YORK NEXT YEAR; GABRIEL BYRNE STARS

    LOS ANGELES, Oct. 23, 2009 – HBO has renewed the Emmy®-winning half-hour drama series IN TREATMENT, which will begin production on its third season in New York in early 2010, with debut scheduled for later in the year, it was announced today by Michael Lombardo, president, Programming Group and West Coast Operations, HBO.

    “IN TREATMENT is synonymous with inspired writing and brilliant acting,” noted Lombardo.  “This is the kind of show that could only flourish on HBO, and we’re proud to bring it back.”

    Gabriel Byrne (Emmy® nominee and Golden Globe winner for Best Performance by an Actor in a Television Series – Drama) stars in the series as Dr. Paul Weston, with additional cast members to be announced as they are confirmed.

    The second season of IN TREATMENT inspired resounding critical praise, with the New York Times hailing the show for “powerful acting and well-wrought dialogue,” while the Los Angeles Times said the “well-drawn and compelling performances are uniformly terrific.”  The Chicago Sun-Times called the series “fascinating” and Newsday termed it a “fine and absorbing show.”

    Joining the show as executive producers are Anya Epstein (HBO’s “Tell Me You Love Me”) and Danny Futterman (“Capote”).  Returning executive producers on the show include Stephen Levinson, Mark Wahlberg and Hagai Levi.  It is expected that Paris Barclay will return as an executive producer/director.
 

  IN TREATMENT is produced by HBO Entertainment; executive producers, Stephen Levinson, Mark Wahlberg, Hagai Levi, Anya Epstein and Danny Futterman; co-executive producers, Noa Tishby and Gabriel Byrne; producer, Sarah Lum.  IN TREATMENT is produced by HBO Entertainment in association with Leverage, Closest to the Hole Productions and Sheleg.

Sponsored Link: Amazon's In Treatment Store

The CW has released information regarding its plans for sweeps. (It's also dismissed two actors from "Melrose Place," neither of which will be missed much.) Anyway, Lady Gaga stops by "Gossip Girl" Nov. 16! Heather Locklear stirs things up at the new "Melrose Place" Nov. 17! Vampires bite! Whatever! Let's just get to what's happening on "Supernatural," shall we?

Spoilers ahoy.

Some of these summaries and photos come from a previous "Supernatural" posts (all of which can be found here).

The first video clip contains footage from the Oct. 29 and Nov. 5 episodes. The second video clip is from the Oct. 29 episode only.

The first three photos on this post are from the Oct. 29 episode. The rest are from the Nov. 5 episode. The summaries below are from the CW. 

“The Curious Case of Dean Winchester,” airs Oct. 29: "When a 25-year-old man drops dead of old age and a 60-something man goes missing, only to turn up young and extremely healthy, the Winchesters investigate and discover a backroom poker game where players gamble to win or lose years of their lives.  Guest stars Jim Beaver as ‘Bobby Singer,’ Chad Everett as ‘Older Dean,’ Hal Ozsan as ‘Patrick’ and Pascale Hutton as ‘Lia.’  Sera Gamble wrote the teleplay for 'The Curious Case of Dean Winchester' based on a story by Sera Gamble & Jenny Klein."

Note: Jim Beaver talks a bit about Bobby's story line in "The Curious Case of Dean Winchester" in this interview.

“Changing Channels,” airs Nov. 5: "When Sam and Dean find themselves living their lives on what appear to be TV shows, it makes for a whole new style of reality television and they wonder if the Trickster (guest star Richard Speight, Jr.) is to blame.  From a sitcom to a soapy hospital drama to a Japanese game show to a crime procedural, each new experience they encounter is more bizarre than the next and they want out.  But is the Trickster really the mastermind behind the madness?  Also starring Misha Collins as ‘Castiel.’  'Changing Channels' was written by Jeremy Carver and directed by Charles Beeson."

"The Real Ghostbusters," airs Nov. 12: "Super-fan Becky (guest star Emily Perkins) tricks Sam and Dean into attending a 'Supernatural' fan convention, complete with fans dressed up as Sam and Dean."

"Abandon All Hope," airs Nov. 19: "Sam, Dean and Castiel track down the Colt and head off to find Lucifer to send him back to Hell.  It’s a hunters’ reunion when the crew joins forces with Bobby (Jim Beaver), Ellen (guest star Samantha Ferris) and Jo (guest star Alona Tal) for what could be their last night on Earth."

As noted in this post, Mark Sheppard guest stars in "Abandon All Hope" as a "pivotal" crossroads demon named Crowley. The episode was written by Ben Edlund and directed by Phil Sgriccia.

After "Abandon All Hope," that's it for 2009 episodes. The show returns in 2010 with more apocalypt-y adventures.

First three photos: guest star Chad Everett, Jared Padalecki, Jensen Ackles; Jim Beaver and Ackles; Ackles and guest star Hal Ozsan.

Last six photos: Ackles and Padalecki, and, in some photos, guest star Richard Speight Jr. as the Trickster. The first "Changing Channels" photo is Ackles with Steve Bacic as "Dr. Sexy."

USA apparently thinks so much of Bomer’s arresting blue eyes that it has designed this likable cop-caper’s ad campaign — and maybe even the show’s palette — around his peepers. “White Collar’s” visuals are full of cool blues, grays, whites and blacks, and the director of photography never wastes a chance to focus on those cornflower-blue orbs.

The good news is that there are more than two reasons to like “White Collar,” a crime-caper show with a “Catch Me If You Can” vibe. Bomer, who played a similarly resourceful character on NBC’s “Chuck,” supplies suave charm as Neal Caffrey, a counterfeiter who has the skills and the dazzling smile to get away with almost every scam he attempts.

Tim DeKay (“Tell Me You Love Me,” “Carnivale”) plays by-the-book FBI agent Peter Burke, who investigates white-collar crimes and finds himself in need of Caffrey’s specialized knowledge. In DeKay’s hands, Burke’s hangdog perseverance is entertaining, and the square FBI agent’s intelligence is quietly convincing. After all, Burke is the only man to have sent the slippery Caffrey to prison.

The uptight cop with the loosey-goosey partner — it’s a familiar mismatch not only in the TV realm but in countless action movies. But cable networks — and USA in particular — have been adept at churning out capable variations on classic television genres. “White Collar” should be no exception to USA’s successful string of original series, which are mildly quirky but aimed squarely at the mainstream.

The best thing about “White Collar” is DeKay and Bomer’s chemistry; DeKay in particular is able to wring subtle comedy from Burke’s irritation at Caffrey’s ability to get something for nothing. Caffrey’s apparently effortless approach to life could be grating, but Bomer imbues him with an element of a sweetness and even longing (a missing girlfriend will be an ongoing story thread). And the lessons Caffrey teaches the slightly nervous Burke about enjoying life may be more or less expected, but they’re delivered with a relatively light touch.

Much of Caffrey’s advice for Burke concerns Burke’s marriage, and that’s where the show falters. Tiffani Thiessen is miscast as Burke’s wife; the actors have a distracting lack of chemistry, and those two just don’t seem like a believable couple.

But the rest of the supporting cast is extremely capable. Natalie Morales ("The Middleman") turns up in the second episode as a junior FBI agent assisting Burke, and she fits right into the show's unforced vibe. Willie Garson ("Sex and the City") does his usual great work as Mozzie, a skittish fellow scammer Caffrey knows.

For now, “White Collar” can skate by on charm and humor, but so far the show’s stories tend to rely on the characters’ good luck and Caffrey having just the right underworld contacts. Perhaps over time, the slight but enjoyable “White Collar” will develop the deeper appeal of USA’s “Burn Notice,” which at its best has both tight plotting and an undeniable emotional pull.

And by the way...

A couple of notes about “Monk,” which airs immediately before “White Collar”: Fans of Adrian Monk’s original companion should tune in to Friday’s episode, which features the return of Sharona (Bitty Schram). Also, USA has announced that the long-running “Monk” will end its run Dec. 4. Virginia Madsen and Melora Harden (“The Office”) will guest star in the series finale.

Photos: Bomer; Morales and DeKay.

The phrase “unlikely heroes” comes to mind while watching this film, but that phrase implies a mawkishness that “Endgame” resolutely avoids, while allowing the characters’ doubts and fears to come through. The film ultimately shows how seemingly ordinary people, drawing on extra reserves of courage at a difficult time, can change history.

Photos: Clarke Peters as Nelson Mandela; William Hurt as Professor Willie Esterhuyse; Chiwetel Ejiofor as Thabo Mbeki.

"The Big Bang Theory" has been so delightful this season that it doesn't need to do much more to win me over. It's already evolved into one of the most enjoyable comedies on the air.

As "Battlestar" and "Big Bang" fans know, this isn't the first connection between the two shows (aside from the general adoration that the show's characters have for all things sci-fi). Michael Trucco ("Battlestar's" Sam Anders) played a love interest for Penny (Kaley Cuoco) last season.

And just to prove that somebody at CBS digs the Cylons, Tricia Helfer, who played Number 6 on the Syfy drama, will soon guest star on "Two and a Half Men" as a friend of Charlie's fiance. (Just as an aside, there's another place to spot various "Battlestar" alums soon. "The Plan," a "BSG" standalone film, comes out on DVD and Blu-Ray Tuesday.)

But back to "Big Bang Theory," which is what prompted this post in the first place. I can't point to any particular thing the show is doing differently this season, but it's just executing on every level in a very pleasing way (and the ratings reflect that: "Big Bang Theory" has gotten its highest-ever ratings in its third season). The characters have become humanized and multi-dimensional, their relationships are believable and well-sketched and the one-liners and jokes are consistently funny.

I especially enjoy the fact that there are different flavors to the comedy. Some of the humor is quite whimsical or even silly, and plots don't always go where you think they're going to end up. I quite liked the fact that Wolowitz's recent blind date with one of Penny's friends went from epic fail to total win once he and his date bonded about having overprotective mothers.

Something else to like: The show hasn't made a huge deal of the fact that Leonard and Penny are now dating. That aspect of "Big Bang Theory" hasn't taken over the show, but it has become a dependable source of relationship comedy that, thankfully, isn't overly contrived or generically "sitcommy."

Stuntcasting is often detrimental to finely calibrated sitcoms, but Wil Wheaton, the "Star Trek: The Next Generation" actor, turned in an effective guest performance in the Oct. 19 episode of the show (which taught is that Wil Wheaton is evil! Evil, I tell you! OK, he's not, really. And the affable actor/author/Internet lord writes about shooting that episode here).

But "Big Bang Theory" needs to go further. I would like to use this opportunity to promote, once again, my ongoing campaign to have Leonard Nimoy guest star on the show. A Sheldon-Spock mind-meld? Who doesn't want to see that?)

Even without high-profile guest stars, the cast is so strong that even subplots about Raj (Kunal Nayyar) and Wolowitz (Simon Helberg) work well. Though Parsons' terrific work as Sheldon has been justifiably singled out for praise, all the actors, including perennial (and skilled) straight man Johnny Galecki as Leonard, turn in dependably good performances. This cast functions like a well-oiled machine.

Not unlike a Cylon!

More details on Sackhoff's role on "Big Bang Theory" are below. Spoilers ahoy.

Sackhoff will play Wolowitz's fantasy woman. And nerds, sit down. I hear from a CBS source that "there may be nudity." Now, the show still airs on CBS, not on Showtime, so don't get too riled up.

But still. Katee Sackhoff. Wolowitz. Implied nudity.

I can hear the geek brains melting now.

Sponsored Link: Amazon's The Big Bang Theory Store

At this point, you may be thinking, "Ryan, shut up about 'Dollhouse' already. Write about 'Desperate Housewives' or 'CSI: Des Moines' or something."

• For more thoughts on "Dollhouse" and an interview with Jed Whedon, look here. He talks a bit about "Belonging" in that interview.
• To find out more about upcoming episodes of "Dollhouse," look here. Spoilers ahoy.
• Look below to see pictures of Ray Wise and Summer Glau in upcoming episodes of the show and for one more Fun Fact about "The Public Eye." I'm not sure if people would consider it spoilery, so I've put it below in case you do.

Fun Fact about "The Public Eye": It's Part 1 of a two-parter. Descriptions of both episodes can be found at the end of this post.

"[F]ollowing her decision to step down as governor of her home state of Alaska, and on the eve of the release of her first book, Palin will speak first to Oprah in a world exclusive interview," a statement from Oprah's production company said on Tuesday.

You may recall that there was a kerfuffle when a report emerged in September 2008 that Winfrey, a prominent backer of President Barack Obama (who was then a candidate for president), said she thought it best not to have Palin on her show until after the election was over. In November of 2008, a report emerged that Winfrey's show had extended an invitation for Palin to appear on the show.

The full release from "The Oprah Winfrey Show" is below. Read more on The Swamp.

Over the weekend, as I noted in this story, news emerged that "Stargate Atlantis" actor Jason Momoa has been cast as horse lord Khal Drogo in the epic saga "Game of Thrones." "GoT" began filming its pilot in Northern Ireland this week (other locations include Scotland and Morocco).

HBO confirmed the casting for several other roles in the drama today:

• Jamie Campbell-Bower (of "The Twilight Saga: New Moon") as Waymar Royce
• Joseph Mawle as Benjen Stark
• Richard Ridings as Gared
• Ron Donachie as Ser Rodrik Cassel
• Donald Sumpter as Maester Luwin
• Ian McNeice as Ilyrio Mopatis

As I've noted in previous stories about the project, Lena Headey will play Cersei Lannister, a member of a powerful family in the "Thrones" saga. Other cast members include Peter Dinklage as Cersei's brother Tyrion, Nikolaj Coster-Waldau as Cersei's twin, Jaime, Sean Bean as the aristocrat Eddard "Ned" Stark, Jennifer Ehle as his wife Catelyn Stark, Mark Addy as King Robert and Isaac Hempstead-Wright as Bran Stark, the son of Eddard Stark.

For a great photo array of the entire cast, check out Tower of the Hand. Other excellent sites covering "ASOIAF" news and the making of the "GoT" pilot in detail include Westeros and Winter is Coming.

The HBO pilot has already drawn a lot of interest from fans of "A Song of Ice and Fire," an acclaimed book series by George R.R. Martin (I discuss what the novels are about here; suffice to say I find Martin's detailed tapestries grand and epic as well as personal and poignant). "Game of Thrones" is the first book in Martin's ongoing series, and if the pilot is picked up to series, Season 1 of "Game of Thrones" would cover what transpires in that first volume. 

I do have some questions in this regard, however: What if Don destroys the papers and photos in the box before Betty can confront him with what she learned from its contents? Also, an even bigger question: Why did Don keep all that stuff -- in his house, no less? Did he keep some of the papers because Anna Draper might need them? Did part of him want to get caught?

I think keeping both dog tags wasn't smart at all. The sight of both dog tags almost took me out of the moment, actually. Even at his most self-destructive, would Don, who has been so focused on survival his entire life, keep such hard evidence of what he'd done in Korea? Hmm, I don't know.

• This deceptively restrained episode did indeed put quite a few key stories in motion:

1. I may be misreading the situation, but I think Lane Pryce is open to the idea of staying in the US, which makes me wonder if he and Don and other SC executives might stage a coup and buy the firm themselves.
2. Peggy and Don, via the Kinsey story line, are still very much in sync creatively, which means that, whatever the future holds for Don, Peggy is probably very much a part of it.
3. Betty, of course, knows Don's secrets and we have no idea when she'll drop that bomb.
4. Finally, Suzanne's brother had Don's business card. Don felt terrible about how things ended with Adam, so he gave that card out with the best of intentions. But I can't help but feel that that could backfire on Don in a big way.

• Kinsey appears to be fraying around the edges and quite possibly drinking too much (sidebar: Does the concept of "too much" exist at Sterling Cooper?). But, talking of perception vs. reality, Kinsey finally sees Peggy for what she is. She is not what he is -- a fairly smart Ivy League grad who skates by at SC because he gets along with the other junior executives and he has the occasional good idea. He thinks she's like him -- someone who is not particularly gifted in this arena and so has to scrabble and claw to get ahead or to stay even with colleagues. Peggy's not trying to undermine Paul or show off her better ideas, however. As is the case with Don, she can see into the heart of the desire and nostalgia. She, like Don, understands advertising in a way that Kinsey never will. She just has the innate insights that ensure that she'll keep rising in the field. She and Don have a gift. Kinsey's dawning realization of that, as Don and Peggy communicate in a way he only half-understands, was beautifully played by Michael Gladis. 
• So, despite the Foot Incident, Lois still has a job?? Kind of amazing, considering. But how amusing was her brainless patter as the increasingly frantic Kinsey rummaged through his office looking for his Great Idea? 

• Those last few scenes in the limos were beautifully orchestrated. And leave it to Roger's mother to make the best wisecrack of the night. As Roger explained that the young woman sitting between them was his wife, his mother exclaimed, "Does Mona know?" Classic.
• I realize this is yet another 3,000-word post on this show. Thanks to anyone who gets this far, and apologies for my wordiness! And if you discover any typos, please be kind as you point them out in comments. I'll attend to them -- if there are any -- as soon as I can.
• I'm going to allow comments to post automatically from Sunday night to Monday morning. You're all generally respectful of each other in the comment areas, so let's keep that trend going. If you're in any doubt about what the house rules are, check out Sepinwall's Six Simple Rules for Commenting. I think they make a lot of sense and they apply here too.

Sponsored Link: Amazon's Mad Men Store

Before I get to my thoughts on the episode, some housekeeping:

1. Next week the CW airs a repeat of the season premiere, so obviously, I won't be reviewing that again. If you want to know what's coming up in some of the episodes after that, look here. That post has pictures and episode summaries from the next two episodes, as well as a "Coming Soon" video clip. (All my other "Supernatural" stories and reviews are here.)

2. I'll be out of town Oct. 29 and unable to do my usual review.

3. I've thought a lot about how to make commenting on this site something that doesn't melt my brain. Now, don't get me wrong, the vast majority of "Supernatural" fans are intelligent, thoughtful, insightful and respectful of my views and the views of their fellow commenters. But some people make me a little crazy (or crazier, depending on your view).

So before you think about commenting here, keep the following guidelines in mind.

And I've wavered on this, but I've come to this conclusion: If you can't follow the common-sense guidelines below, you will be banned from commenting on this site. You won't get a second chance, you won't get a warning. I know, it sounds harsh. Maybe it is harsh.

But this site functions according to Mo's Grand Theory of Commenting, which is: The environment here should be so accepting, so calm and so non-screechy that most timid lurker should feel it's safe to comment. I simply won't let angry, vicious, annoying or repetitive people hijack the comment areas.

The upshot? Don't tick me off. I'll ban you. Or turn you into an action figure.

So, here are the common-sense guidelines:

• Be nice. To further quote from Alan Sepinwall's Rules for Commenting: "This is an opinion blog, and a place where people can and should argue passionately for their point of view. But there's a difference between arguing with passion and arguing with hostility. If you can't find a way to express your viewpoint without insulting other commenters, or getting strident and self-righteous -- say, equating your opinion with fact, and deriding other people for not seeing the truth of your words -- then either tone down your words until they're more respectful to other people, or don't comment." Seriously. Read the whole thing. Those rules apply here. Take them to heart.  
• Absolutely no Samgirl-Deangirl fangirl nonsense. I'm not going to explain what this is. We all know what it is. It's possible to critique individual episodes in an intelligent fashion without becoming hysterical about how the writers have ruined Sam, Dean, the show and/or Western Civilization. Alice Jester's post on Sam and Dean, their Infamous Apologies and the nature of family squabbling says it all. READ THIS. Seriously. As a fan, if you're not coming from the place that Alice is, or someplace in that neighborhood, go elsewhere to rant.
• No comments over 500 words.
• Please, please don't mention any spoilers.
• Don't repeat something that other people have already said multiple times. Please only share your thoughts if you have new ideas to add or want to respond to what other commenters have said.
• Enjoy this. I know, everything I wrote above sounds so strict and uptight! And I'm sorry for that (and again, it's aimed at the few people who don't already abide by these guidelines instinctively). But if we can't make this commenting atmosphere enjoyable, then there's no point in doing it.
• Some other relevant info: I read and approve all comments before they are posted. Since commenting typically continues over the weekend, you may see a lag time between when you add your comment and when you see it posted here, as I attempt to have a life outside of writing about TV (Heresy! I know!).
• If things get ugly this time around or if my weak brain just gets tired, I may shut down comments on Saturday or so. Not out of angst or whatever, but just so I don't have comment approval hanging over my head all weekend.

OK, on to the main event -- if anyone is still reading, that is!

I thought it was especially important to go over the commenting rules before starting this review, because, in my view, "I Believe the Children Are Our Future" had some significant weak spots. If I were a teacher, I'd give the student a C, or maybe a B- if I were feeling charitable, and I'd write this in the margin of the paper: "I know you can do better."

So I'll try to abide by my own rules and go through my issues with "Children" respectfully and with a minimum of snark (ha).

Last week's episode, as many of us remarked, didn't do a great job of tying the brothers' story to the monster-of-the-week plot. The two elements of that episode seemed disjointed.

"Children," I thought, had the opposite problem. The story of whether Jesse would "make the right choice" and the way that element was tied into Sam's history was about as subtle as an anvil to the cranium.

Actually, I found the writing for both brothers somewhat simplistic. Dean was portrayed at times as an immature chucklehead and Sam was obsessed with guilt over the choices he'd made. If we didn't understand Sam's first speech about making good choices, we got almost the same speech from him a few minutes later. Really? Ouch. That anvil hurts when it lands on my head. 

The most interesting part of the episode had to do with the nature of truth and lies, and whether the truth, in some cases, a harsh truth is kinder than a well-intentioned lie. But there seemed to be a bit of a mishmash in "Children" -- it started out exploring the idea of belief making things real but then segued into whether telling the truth is better than lying. These ideas are related, of course, but they could have been tackled a bit more subtly. For instance, the conversation at the end -- the attempt to tie the brothers' story to Jesse's plight -- felt tacked-on.

And I wouldn't have minded the juvenile humor (Dean's hairy palm? Cas on a whoopie cushion?) if it was just one element of an otherwise solid episode. But "Children" had some problematic plotting.

There was too much of the "what's happening in this town?" introductory material, in my view. Now, part of the problem there may just be my problem -- I had known since Comic-Con that "Supernatural" would be doing an anti-Christ episode. So the first couple of acts were fairly anti-climactic for me, given that I knew where they were leading. But then I asked my husband, who is never aware of spoilers, what he thought of that aspect of "Children," and he said the beginning dragged a bit for him as well.

Your mileage may vary, but for my money, the first couple of acts recalled (or simply swiped elements from) superior episodes such as "Playthings" and "Bedtime Stories" without really introducing anything new or compelling.

Once we got to Jesse and his mother, things improved. I thought Gattlin Griffith, the actor playing Jesse, was great -- he had a kind of presence that child actors often don't have. I could completely buy Jesse as a very evolved, very powerful being inside the body of a smart, independent child. And Ever Carradine, who played Julia, the woman/demon who gave birth to him, did a great job in that role (but my God, the extreme closeups on her face this week were almost as annoying as the Random ShakyCam last week).

The premise of a powerful child who doesn't even know the true extent of his own powers and isn't intrinsically evil but could become evil -- it's an exceptionally tantalizing idea. Seeing Jesse discover what he was capable of was interesting, and the suspense of the episode derived from not knowing whether he would side with his demon!Mom or the Winchesters.

The outcome had to do with respect, in the end. Julia was telling Jesse the "truth," but she was spinning it to her own ends. When the Winchesters finally told Jesse what was really going on, they left the decision about what to do up to him. They respected him enough to let him make his own choice, and hence he didn't kill them or turn them into action figures (sidebar: Cas action figure! Pretty cool!) 


But I was left with a lot of questions about this kid, which the mother's exposition didn't fully explain. How did a virgin birth come about in a demon? What, if anything, did Lucifer and his henchmen have to do with the birth of Jesse? Why is a human-demon hybrid so powerful? How is it that no demon ever figured out that finding the adoption records could have helped in the quest to find Jesse? His powers kept him disguised? Huh?

Sam, of course, somehow got hold of the adoption records with no problem (normally I buy pretty much anything about the show's "investigations" if most of the plot points have been earned honestly, but this was just one more "huh?" moment for me).

And after giving up this child and "running," the mother helpfully gave the adoption authorities her new address -- and then never left that place? I know we saw that the demon who had been inside her watched her for 11 years, waiting for her to supply a clue about the kid's whereabouts. But we were told several times that there were multiple demons who wanted to figure out where Jesse was. Are we to understand that not one demon was smart enough to look into birth-records angle and try to find Jesse that way?

And finally, wasn't it convenient that demon!Julia showed up by herself to Jesse's house? Jesse could have probably overpowered a demon army, but why not bring backup or at least tell her superiors where Jesse was? Because the plot required her not to, that's why.

All in all, the things I liked best about the episode were the performances of Gattlin Griffith as Jesse and Ever Carradine as Julia, as well as the tortured look on Castiel's face as he attempted to kill the child. The last few scenes in Jesse's house, as the boys were explaining what was going on and later, as Jesse trudged up the stairs to take a final look at his parents -- all that was poignant. For some reason, the image of Jesse flopping on his bed -- a tired kid unable to completely understand why he had to leave home -- was the most effective moment for me. 

Still, while it had a few good moments and scenes, elements of "Children" seemed rushed or sloppy. It felt as though corners had been cut in a few too many places. When it comes down to it, I judge an episode of "Supernatural" by how much I want to watch it again. I wasn't in any great rush to watch "Children" again, but I did watch it twice, to make sure that I was judging it as fairly and as honestly as I could.

I hope we see Jesse again; he clearly looks like he could be a player later in the season. And perhaps at that point we'll get some more information and/or clarity about his origins and how he fits into the bigger picture.

Don't get me wrong, I didn't expect "Children" to fully supply all of that information this time around. But I think this fitfully interesting, occasionally quite frustrating episode could have done a better job of explaining who and what he is and how he came to be.

Sponsored Link: Amazon's Supernatural Store

As is often the case with these kinds of retrospectives, there are a lot of stories about how things went terribly wrong or almost never happened in the first place. For instance, the making of "Monty Python and the Holy Grail," which the very dissimilar Gilliam and Jones directed together, sounds fairly hellish, though there's a twinkle in Giliam's eye as he recalls the dawning realization that he could not treat actors the way he treated the pieces of paper he used for his animations.

Carol Cleveland, an actress who appeared in the "Python" TV show and films, put it more succinctly: "They were both loony."

They may have all been loony in very specific ways, but without that particular mixture of whimsy, silliness, surrealistic tendencies and razor-sharp wit, we wouldn't be repeating "Python" lines 40 years later. Showing what each member of the group brought to "Python" is one of this documentary series' most admirable accomplishments. For instance, I'll never think of Gilliam's animations as enjoyable stopgaps again; they actually allowed the Pythons to ignore or otherwise get around the problem of giving sketches a proper ending.

And for all Graham Chapman's problems (he spent many of the troupe's busiest years in an alcoholic haze), he brought an absurdist streak to the writing of sketches and had an appealing vulnerability as a leading man in the "Python" films. For those reasons, the other Pythons tried to overlook the fact that he was only really capable of working for about 90 minutes a day.

The genial Michael Palin, who excelled at playing any number of smarmy TV presenters and game-show hosts, was clearly the glue that held "Python's'" sometimes antagonistic factions together (one subgroup more or less revolved around Cleese while another worked more closely with Jones). As one of the other Pythons observes, every group needs someone like that.

But what comes through most strongly in this six-hour feast for comedy fans is how disciplined the Python troupe members were as they tweaked not just English culture but the very notion of authority. All of them except Gilliam (who came from the world of underground magazines) spent years developing their writing and acting skills as undergraduates at Cambridge and Oxford and on the staffs of a variety of British TV shows. And they were all smart; Cleese put a promising law career on hold to pursue comedy and Chapman qualified as a physician.

They brought those study habits with them into their comedy careers -- the troupe spent a lot of time researching the roots of Christianity before writing "Monty Python's Life of Brian." And they went to a great deal of trouble to make sure they weren't mocking Jesus Christ in that film. What they wanted to mock, they explain, is the idea of blind allegiance to any set of beliefs or any individual.

The personal histories of each Python are somewhat cursory but helpful, and it's hard not to recoil at Eric Idle's tale of being left at a boarding school at age 7 (his mother thought it would be kinder not to say goodbye). Recordings of "The Goon Show" and "Beyond the Fringe," comedy franchises revered by most of the Pythons, provide context for the arrival of "Python" on British TV. And this thorough history goes well beyond the troupe's TV history to cover their adventures in filmmaking and beyond.

It's all very enjoyable stuff, with one exception. A variety of famous Python fans are interviewed as well, and while interviews with Dan Ackroyd and "Saturday Night Live" creator Lorne Michaels make sense, some of the other choices are bizarre, to say the least. I can honestly say that I don't care what Seth Green or Bruce Dickinson from Iron Maiden think of the Python's impact on popular culture. And if the film is going to dwell on the Pythons' influence on British comedy, I wish there'd been more from Eddie Izzard and less of the ramblings of enthusiastic but not particularly insightful Russell Brand.

Having said all that, you can watch longer versions of the individual Python interviews on the DVD set that comes out Oct. 27. That set also contains a collection of sketches from the show, including "The Dead Parrot," the Spam sketch and "The Fish Slapping Dance." All of which are still funny.

As is the classic sketch below, which is a favorite of mine (it's from the Python channel on YouTube). I sometimes think of it as I peruse, with fond exasperation, some of the comment areas on this site and elsewhere. (One final note: You can watch four of the Pythons on a recent episode of "Late Night With Jimmy Fallon" here.)

UPDATE Oct. 17: I've added pictures from the Nov. 5 episode below.

"Supernatural" fans, there are some goodies below for you.

Look below for summaries of the next three episodes of the CW show, including Thursday's installment, as well as the killer "Coming Soon" video clip that aired at the end of last week's epidoe.

The "Coming Soon" clip is a compilation of moments from the episodes listed below.

Spoilers ahoy.

The first four photos on this post are from the Oct. 29 episode. The rest are from the Nov. 5 episode. The summaries below are from the CW. 

“I Believe the Children Are Our Future,” airs Thursday: "A series of strange and seemingly unexplainable deaths in a small town lead Sam (Jared Padalecki) and Dean (Jensen Ackles) to the home of a young local boy, whose true identity has Castiel (Misha Collins) bent on his immediate destruction.  Guest stars Ever Carradine as ‘Julia’ and Gattlin Griffith as ‘Jesse.’  Written by Andrew Dabb & Dan Loflin and directed by Charles Beeson."

For photos from "I Believe the Children Are Our Future," look here.

The show broadcasts a repeat of the Season 5 premiere on Oct. 22.

“The Curious Case of Dean Winchester,” airs Oct. 29: "When a 25-year-old man drops dead of old age and a 60-something man goes missing, only to turn up young and extremely healthy, the Winchesters investigate and discover a backroom poker game where players gamble to win or lose years of their lives.  Guest stars Jim Beaver as ‘Bobby Singer,’ Chad Everett as ‘Older Dean,’ Hal Ozsan as ‘Patrick’ and Pascale Hutton as ‘Lia.’  Sera Gamble wrote the teleplay for 'The Curious Case of Dean Winchester' based on a story by Sera Gamble & Jenny Klein."

Note: Jim Beaver talks a bit about Bobby's story line in "The Curious Case of Dean Winchester" in this interview.

“Changing Channels,” airs Nov. 5: "When Sam (Jared Padalecki) and Dean (Jensen Ackles) find themselves living their lives on what appear to be TV shows, it makes for a whole new style of reality television and they wonder if the Trickster (guest star Richard Speight, Jr.) is to blame.  From a sitcom to a soapy hospital drama to a Japanese game show to a crime procedural, each new experience they encounter is more bizarre than the next and they want out.  But is the Trickster really the mastermind behind the madness?  Also starring Misha Collins as ‘Castiel.’  'Changing Channels' was written by Jeremy Carver and directed by Charles Beeson."

One final note about the episode that airs Nov. 19: It's called "Abandon All Hope..." and it was written by Ben Edlund. It's the final episode of 2009 for "Supernatural," which returns with new episodes in early 2010. To find out who guest stars in the episode, look at the end of this post. For more "Supernatural" spoilers, check out the Twitter feed of the SuperWiki -- there are links aplenty!

Come back here Friday for a review of Thursday's episode. All my other far-too-numerous "Supernatural" stories are here.

First four photos: Jensen Ackles; guest star Chad Everett, Jared Padalecki, Ackles; Jim Beaver and Ackles; Ackles and guest star Hal Ozsan.

Last six photos: Ackles and Padalecki, and, in some photos, guest star Richard Speight Jr. as the Trickster. The last photo is Ackles with Steve Bacic as "Dr. Sexy."

Sponsored Link: Amazon's Supernatural Store

Not for Emmy wins, though the show, which won its third best-comedy Emmy in September, isn’t doing  too shabby in that department: It picked up a record-setting 22 nods when nominations were announced in July.

No, the record that creator and star Tina Fey appears to be going for concerns the number of real-life references and insider jokes that one half-hour comedy can make. “30 Rock,” which is set at a fictional NBC sketch comedy show, has always featured a lot of meta-jokes about its network and timely barbs about current events, but the season opener takes particularly audacious aim at boneheaded network decisions, corporate greed and celebrity stupidity.

The cast of the fictional “TGS” is told their program doesn’t connect enough with mainstream America, and comedy writer Liz Lemon (Fey) takes exception to this pronouncement. But, true to “30 Rock’s” modus operandi — which often has the comedy celebrating its chosen targets even as it ridicules them — the episode mocks Middle America as the home of junk food-loving yokels as Liz tears into her favorite new snack, artery-clogging Cheesy Blasters.

Through “TGS” cast members Tracy (Tracy Morgan) and Jenna (Jane Krakowski), “30 Rock” skewers the kind of pampered celebrities who can’t exist without assistants and who command regular folk not to look them in the eyes. These jokes are weaker, given the obviousness of the clueless-stars target, but those gibes are offset by the show’s fondness for surreal moments and by the always hilarious performance of Jack McBrayer as Kenneth the Page and the ever-amusing deadpan of Alec Baldwin as network executive Jack Donaghy.

“30 Rock’s” ratings have never set the world on fire, but just as Lemon’s awkward nerd charm allows her to say almost anything to the world-weary Donaghy, the low-rated show’s status as an awards magnet means it can get away with biting the hand that feeds it. The results may not hit the mark every time  (stories about Jack, Liz and Kenneth usually work, while those concerning Tracy and Jenna are hit or miss), but there are enough pointed, smart and effective barbs to make this show a must-see comedy even as it enters its fourth season.

• St. Barts: Also known as St. Barthelemy, it's a Caribbean destination favored by the wealthy and influential.
• Rabbi Shmuley: Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, the author of "Kosher Sex" and "The Kosher Sutra" and former BFF of Michael Jackson.
• Josh: An actor on "TGS," "30 Rock's" show-within-a-show, who has not been spotted on "30 Rock" for some time.
• Moby: A recording artist who makes techno-inflected music.
• Park Slope: A yuppified Brooklyn neighborhood.
• Strike: One of the season premiere's story lines is about a strike led by one of "30 Rock's" characters; there appear to be some parallels between that fictional strike and the real Writers Guild of America strike that took place between Nov. 5, 2007 and Feb. 12, 2008.
• Fiscal crisis: Donaghy is on a mission to cut costs, which reflects the reality at NBC (and other networks). Thanks to the declining fortunes of its prime-time lineup, NBC endured more than its share of layoffs and cost-cutting, even before the economy's woes set in.
• Nixon: Richard Nixon is an inspiration to Donaghy, who calls the current occupant of the White House "Comrade Obama."

Photos: Jack McBrayer as Kenneth the Page, Tina Fey as Liz Lemon, Jane Krakowski as Jenna.

Sponsored Link: Amazon's 30 Rock Store

Principal photography begins in earnest the following week in Northern Ireland. Other filming locations reportedly include Scotland and Morocco (HBO has not confirmed those locations, but George R.R. Martin, the author of the book series on which "Thrones" is based, has said he plans to go to Morocco for the filming of part of the pilot). 

The network also confirmed that Isaac Hempstead-Wright has been cast in the key role of Bran Stark, the son of Eddard Stark, a powerful lord. Bran is a child as the epic "Thrones" book series begins, but his role becomes increasingly important to the story as it progresses.

HBO's "Thrones" pilot, which has not yet been picked up as a series, is based on the first book of Martin's "A Song of Ice and Fire" series of novels.

I reported in September that Lena Headey has been cast as Cersei Lannister, a member of a powerful family in the "Thrones" saga. Other cast members include Peter Dinklage as Cersei's brother Tyrion, Nikolaj Coster-Waldau as Cersei's twin, Jaime, Sean Bean as the aristocrat Ned Stark, Jennifer Ehle as his wife Catelyn Stark and Mark Addy as King Robert. 

An HBO representative said that the role of Khal Drogo, another key role in the book series, has not yet been cast.

UPDATE Oct. 17: Westeros and Winter is Coming, two essential "Game of Thrones" sites, have posted reports from a convention that say Jason Momoa of "Stargate Atlantis" has been cast as Khal Drogo. If I get confirmation of this casting from HBO, I will post that here.

UPDATE 2 Oct. 17: HBO has confirmed the casting of Momoa as Khal Drogo.

UPDATE 3 Oct. 17: I just want to give full credit for the breaking of the Momoa story to ABitLikeTrying on Twitter, who tweeted the news about his casting from a convention Oct. 16. She also noted that Momoa will have a nude scene and said that the actor has hired a trainer to see about bulking up for the role.

The Twitter page of actor Jamie Campbell Bower ("Twilight New Moon," AMC's "The Prisoner") says that he's headed to Belfast, and fan speculation has him cast as "Thrones'" Waymar Royce, but that has not yet been officially confirmed by HBO (if I get confirmation, I'll update this post).

• More good news: ABC's "Modern Family" has been picked up for a full season. It's still my favorite new show of the fall, by far. I just love this comedy. Shelley Long turns up in Wednesday's episode as the mother of the show's extended clan, and it's a very funny half-hour. Below is a clip from Wednesday's episode.
• Other ABC comedies getting full-season pickups include "Cougar Town" and "The Middle."
• Fox's "Glee," the CW's "The Vampire Diaries" and CBS' "The Good Wife," all of which are doing well in the ratings, have also gotten full-season orders. "NCIS: LA" is doing so well that, as Alan Sepinwall put it, once CBS "is done working on its 'Criminal Minds' spinoff, don't be surprised to see 'NCIS: Puget Sound.'"
• "FlashForward" has been picked up for a full season as well. I don't think the show is quite there yet -- last week's episode contained more than a few implausibilities and sticky time conundrums, and I've yet to feel that the character drama aspect of the drama has gelled, but I'm sticking with the show. It's a show about time, and it needs a bit more to show us what it may be able to do. One more reason to stick with it: Dominic Monaghan's character joins "FlashForward" in Thursday's episode.
• Rumors are swirling that "Chuck" could come back before its planned March return, especially if "Trauma" continues to do badly in the ratings. I am not at all sure it's a good idea for NBC to bring the show back in late October (this EW story suggests that there's a chance that may happen). According to a story in The Wrap, even NBC insiders realize that's not enough time to give the show the promotion it needs. But I wonder if waiting until March is such a great idea. The idea is for NBC to use the Olympics to promote the show, but who knows how effective that will be and by then, almost a year will have passed since Season 2 of "Chuck" ended. Truth be told, I am not sure what I want for the show, except that I want it to be successful enough in its third season -- whenever that begins -- for NBC to order additional episodes beyond the 13 it has commissioned. Let's hope that somehow, the right decision gets made. NBC hasn't made a ton of great decisions in the past few years, but on "Chuck's" behalf, my fingers are crossed. I don't want to have to start using a "Save 'Chuck'" Twitter icon before Christmas, 'cause that would just be very sad.
• As for NBC canceling "Southland" before the show even returned for its second season, well, what can be said? Every time you think NBC has hit bottom, it finds a new low. However there is some possible good news for "Southland": There are reports that TNT might pick up the show. Keep checking my Twitter feed or TV Tattle for the latest updates on this show and other pickups and cancellations.

Langston will first visit "CSI: Miami" on Nov. 9; he travels south in an episode titled "Bone Voyage" to investigate a case with ties to Las Vegas. Fishburne and "CSI: Miami" star David Caruso are pictured at left; perhaps Langston and Horatio Caine are talking about cool sunglasses, which Langston is still sporting when he arrives in New York on Nov. 11 (Fishburne and "CSI: NY" star Gary Sinise are pictured at right).

In that "CSI: NY" episode, "Hammer Down," according to CBS, "a big-rig accident results in the discovery of an interstate trucking ring that specializes in human cargo and black-market organ harvesting, and sets off a race against time to save a hostage."

The three-part crossover concludes on Nov. 12 on "CSI." In that episode, viewers will learn more about what Langston is investigating: "a nationwide human trafficking network that abducts young girls forces them into prostitution," according to David Weddle, who penned the episode with his writing partner, Bradley Thompson.

Ubiquitious guest star Mark Sheppard, who played Romo Lampkin on "Battlestar Galactica" (a character who knew a thing or two about shades), has a guest role in that Nov. 12 "CSI" episode. Sheppard, who has a credit list as long as your arm and apparently by law must appear on every scripted show in existence, also appears on USA's new show "White Collar" Oct. 23 and "Supernatural" on Nov. 19.

The moon? You can even read his crazy request to bring the moon into the campaign a couple of ways: That was indeed part of the spirit of the times and Connie tapped into that and wanted to see that New Frontier sense of optimism reflected, either overtly or indirectly, in the ad campaign. I think he sounded a little batty when he went on about the moon, but there's also a sense that, in his disappointment, he was conveying something important to Don. He was telling Don that Don failed to really get at what mattered to Connie. And that's the thing that Don is usually pretty good at -- understanding what moves and motivates a client and grasping the core idea that a client wants to convey. Despite all those late-night chats with Connie, Don hadn't quite grasped the core of what Connie wanted. 

But it's certainly possible to watch that pitch scene and think, "Hey, Don's campaign was pretty good. And Connie's just wacko." I actually love the fact that both interpretations are valid. There may be truth to both of them. Don may have missed the mark, but it may not be possible to hit the mark with a client like that. Hence Don's look of total consternation as Connie exited.

If we didn't know he was going to bed the teacher the moment he spotted her jogging, we knew it was a done deal the minute he failed with Connie. It was inevitable.

Not to excuse the way he treated Sal, but Don's actually under a huge amount of pressure -- one that taps right into the Dick Whitman side of him. Connie may ask a lot of Don, but he also confides in Don, he opens up to him. When Connie tells him that he sees Don as a son, we see Don's mask of ironic detachment fall away, and we see a shadow of the more innocent Dick Whitman cross his face. Don's own father always thought Don/Dick was a disappointment; he never could please the old man. Now, with Connie, that dynamic is repeating itself. But Don can't run, though Dick could and did.

Don, now that he's trapped in this moneyed but confining world, runs in the only direction he can: Straight into the teacher's bed. And showing up on her doorstep is actually far more dangerous than his impromptu party with the hitchhikers. In that case, they just rolled him for his cash and left him with a gash on his face.

The teacher he picked up on the side of the road represents a far greater threat to his entire life, as the teacher herself points out. They are bound to be caught. It's a small town -- someone will see, someone will talk. Don's gambling with his entire suburban existence, but he just needs an escape (from the phone, if nothing else). But on some level, you almost have to wonder if he wants to get caught.

It's no surprise, but it's still sad, that as they look for a release from the pressures they feel, as they search for emotional fulfillment, both Don and Betty look elsewhere. Don wants comfort from the teacher and approval from Connie, while Betty wants to star in a pure, noble romance -- even though she's a married woman with three children.

Henry's been around long enough to know that he couldn't just turn up at her house again. He knows that what they're embarking on is an illicit affair, not some gallant saga of noble love. Betty wants the whole thing to not be sordid -- but even she has to realize that there's no escaping the sordidness of this kind of affair. The one-night stand in the bar may have been hot, but sleeping with a politician's aide on his shabby couch in his shabby office? Not hot.

So much of this episode, and this season, I suppose, has been about characters not seeing the big picture. Harry may be the poster child for that phenomena in this episode. He tried to use a strategy frequently employed by other characters -- "This never happened" -- but he completely botched the Lee Garner Jr situation with that approach. If he had gone to management, Roger and the other account men might have been able to find a way to assuage Garner's ego. And they certainly wouldn't let Sal attend that meeting. Allowing Sal to be in that room was truly was moronic on Harry's part. And by not seeing the bigger picture, Harry may well have cost Sal his job.

Lost in her romantic fantasy, Betty doesn't see until late into the episode that what she wants from Henry -- a magical romance -- isn't possible. Carla knows exactly what is up, and Betty can't risk Don finding out (imagine her not being able to take the moral high ground with her roaming spouse). But more than that -- she's a suburban wife and mother. She wants an escape from that, but Henry can't realistically provide it. And she can't quite see that what she wants -- a sense of purpose and meaning -- can't be provided by any affair. The bigger picture is that she has to stop looking at handsome men to come to her rescue and start living life as an adult.

The schoolteacher, for all her psycho qualities ("Why are you flirting with me? Now I will flirt with you. Why are you flirting with me, you philandering rogue!" Oy gevalt) at least sees what is coming in American society. She understands exactly how important Dr. Martin Luther King Jr's "I Have a Dream" speech is. She gets the bigger picture in that case. Few other characters do.

• Bryan Batt. Wow. Another moving, top-notch performance. Look at the "Mad Men" site Basket of Kisses on Monday for an interview with the actor.
• Now that both Sal and Joan are gone -- sob! I don't want Sal and Joan to be gone! But by the time Season 4 rolls around, won't it be strange if some SC employees haven't moved on? Still, I hope "Mad Men" finds a plausible way for both Christina Hendricks and Bryan Batt to stick around.
• I still think that what Don told Connie about his past in "My Old Kentucky Home" could come back to haunt him. Connie assumes that Don "understands" where Connie is coming from because they both come from poor backgrounds and had to get where they are via sheer willpower. But what Don told Connie -- which is true of Dick Whitman -- may be at variance with what people may know about Don Draper's past. 
• Betty appears to have moved around the furniture in her living room and the fainting couch appears to be there to stay. I'm sure her decorator would be horrified.

Sponsored Link: Amazon's Mad Men Store

All of those shows employ it as part of their overall look and feel. "Supernatural" has been using shaky cam every so often, in random scenes. And it doesn't seem jarring or out of place if it's used for more action-oriented scene. But to use it in the motel room scene where Sam and Dean were having one of the most important conversations in the history of the show? Aggggghhhhh. It annoyed me. A lot.

Let's move on. The conversations that Sam and Dean had were long overdue, that's for sure. Sam was made to understand -- again -- just how hurt and betrayed Dean feels, and Sam was as upfront as he's ever been about the guilt he feels regarding his actions and the process he's going through right now -- the process of working through that guilt and figuring out where he went wrong and why.

Dean was made to understand that Sam is not there as his servant or errand boy; he doesn't need to babysit Sam and watch over him obsessively. What Sam did was his fault, Sam's clear about that and he "owns it," as they say in daytime talk-show circles. But Dean's attitudes and actions contributed to where Sam ended up. Sam just wanted to get away from Dean, which must have been hard for Dean to hear. But the saying of various hard truths -- by both brothers -- was absolutely necessary. (This sentence has been edited. As originally written, I don't think my meaning was clear.)

I am a little disappointed that an almost-throwaway conversation was the only reference we got Dean's seal-breaking and Sam's knowledge of that. I don't want to start a whole kerfuffle in the comment area -- I understand that Sam knowing that Dean broke the first seal doesn't radically change anything. But it's odd to me that that first conversation, in which Sam found out what Dean had done, apparently happened offscreen. Why not show that?

In any case, I'm of two minds about the Sam and Dean conversations in this episode. First, as noted, they were necessary and long overdue, and I particularly liked the fact that Sam pointed out that they couldn't go back to the way things were before -- because the way things were before didn't work and the previous state of their relationship sort of helped land them in the mess they're in now.

But second, if the problems were that deep-seated, are a few conversations and apologies going to fix everything? Are Sam and Dean done with brotherly angst? There was a bit of a feeling of "And that's that! We're done here!" when it came to the ending of the episode. As if everything had gone wrong between the Winchesters had been patched up and they're all good now. 

So readers, do you think that A) everything is fixed and we'll just be seeing a lot of smiting and the like from two brothers who get along fine, or B) everything is sort of better for now but there are still issues between the Winchesters that will need to be worked out over time?

On the one hand, I can see the appeal of Option A. The world needs some serious saving and two brothers in serious need of family therapy may not be as effective when it comes to fighting the Apocalypse. Yet Option B seems more realistic to me and more true to the spirit of the show, in some ways. I'm not saying I need "Supernatural" to be Angst-Fest of the Century, but part of the appeal, to me anyway, is seeing two people with real problems and real love between them try to figure out how to get along without punching each other in the face. Often.

My guess (and it's only a guess) is that we'll see some brotherly issues continue to work themselves out, but maybe now we'll also get to see a bit more of the personal journeys of each brother. Something along the lines, perhaps, of Dean realizing that instead of taking care of his little brother and the entire world, he can take care of himself and maybe even accept the fact that his life has been worthwhile, and Sam realizing that, like the Cowardly Lion in "The Wizard of Oz," he had courage and goodness in him the whole time. 

A few last things: Pictures and an episode summary from next week's episode are here. The CW has told me that there will be a repeat on Oct. 22, but then there will be all new episodes until Thanksgiving. Finally, let's NOT talk about the specifics of the "Soon" trailer that ran at the end of the episode. I don't want to expose spoilerphobes to spoilers.

But, great gosh almighty, how great did that trailer look??

UPDATE: The following paragraph concerns casting news for the Nov. 19 episode of "Supernatural." Look away if you don't want to see mild spoilers.

A "Supernatural" source has confirmed that the ubiquitous and talented Mark Sheppard (the actor who has his own Full Employment Act) will play a "pivotal" crossroads demon named Crowley in Episode 10 of the season. The episode is called "Abandon All Hope...," and it was written by Ben Edlund and will be directed by Phil Sgriccia. It's the final "Supernatural" episode of 2009 (the show will resume its fifth season with new episodes in 2010. More than a month without "Supernatural"? Say it ain't so!). The episode is "epic" and will "definitely ... have the fans on the edge of their seats going into the holiday 'hellatus,'" my source said.

Sponsored Link: Amazon's Supernatural Store

That's because they realized that every wedding is two things: A big, sometimes annoying, sometimes fun party for all the people who attend, and a small, intimate moment between two people who are in love. "Niagara" managed to be both of those things.

What's been great about the progress of Pam and Jim's relationship is that it always felt real. No matter how over-the-top Michael Scott or any "Office" antics ever got, Jim and Pam's friendship and courtship felt grounded in reality.

And the wedding continued that trend. How many couples have felt, at one time or another, that they just wanted to drop the whole wedding brouhaha and just run away and get hitched by themselves? A lot. Smart as they are, Jim and Pam figured out a way to go off and have their beautiful, private moment, which enabled them to put up with all the lunacy that followed at the church.

I'm pretty impressed by the fact that the writers took another cliche -- a wedding in Niagara Falls -- and made it kind of amazing. Seeing Jim and Pam on that boat, with the Falls in the background, so in love, with an joyful Jim looking over Pam's head at the camera -- OK, I may be tearing up a little now. Talk about subverting a cliche.

Did you notice that the "silence" pattern was continued for their wedding? When Jim proposed to Pam, it was much more about the visuals of that moment than the barely audible or inaudible dialogue. When Jim found out that Pam was pregnant, there was no audio (for part of the scene, anyway). And when they said their vows -- no audio. You don't really need words for moments like that, when the looks on their faces say it all.

Here are just a few of my favorite moments or story threads from the wedding:

• Dwight as a lady-killing d-bag. "She's a bumpkin. Pass."
• Kevin's hairpiece.
• Angela, who cheated on Andy by sneaking around with Dwight, keeping her condemnation of Jim and Pam intact: "Relax, you'll get your shot at Jim. Those two treat the whole office as a 1970s key party."
• Michael's frantic desire to say a wedding toast, and the horrifying way that he tried to recover the situation after Jim's blunder.
• Jim's blunder. It was very clever to have Jim spill the beans about the baby early on in the episode. Way to play with our expectations -- of course most of us expected Michael to tell Pam's family the news.
• As everyone vomited in the office, the only thing better than Pam's look of triumph was Creed's complete cluelessness. He continued to eat his pasta as everyone hurled.
• Dwight wearing the infamous "Three Wolf Moon" T-shirt. Seriously, if you're ever down, go look at the reviews of this shirt on Amazon. It's one of my favorite pick-me-ups.
• For some reason, this line made me collapse with laughter: "Mose hates to geld the horses by himself."
• Michael: "She was from Europe."

All in all, I thought it was a fun hour of television. There were more moments I enjoyed, but I'll let you take over from here. Share your comments below, if you care to. Thanks.

Related: Photos of Jim and Pam's "Office" wedding

Sponsored Link: Amazon's The Office Store