A TV Calling

NBC programming keeps going down South

2009-10-09T22:45:00.000+02:00

So, I woke up this morning with another news that symbolized the continued downfall of the Peacock network.

"Southland" has been cancelled after a quick run in the spring, and while it was scheduled to return in the Friday slot of death in just 2 weeks.

Today, TV commenters are dumbfounded by the decision, which was prompted, according to sources, by a content deemed "too gritty" for 9 p.m. viewers. Some people call it "the first casualty of Jay Leno"; others "the end of NBC's commitment to excellence in drama". They're absolutely right. But I also think it shows tragic misdirection in NBC's management of their development slate.

"Southland" premiered in the Thursday slot left vacant by "ER", which was run by John Wells, who also produces this show. The ratings were surprisingly solid, which was seen as a "tour de force" in an otherwise bleak season. But, as we all know, Jay Leno would take all the 10 p.m. slots in the fall. NBC sure wanted to stay in business with Wells, so they decided to renew the show, but put it on Fridays at 9.

Usually, if a show had a gritty content, execs would ask to lighten up the tone of the stories somewhat. Not the case here: they waited until six episodes were completed, and decided it was inappropriate to show on Fridays. This comes after news that Amaury Nolasco was leaving the show, the premiere was pushed back a month...

And there was still a slot on Sundays at 10 pm on midseason.

Oh, wait. That's "The Apprentice" time.

As we all know, apart from "Law and Order SVU" and its comedy block (with modest ratings compared to the Must-See TV days), nobody even bothers watching the fiction programming anymore. "The Biggest Loser" apparently does fine, and, coming October, "Dateline NBC" will do fine....especially for NBC, who produces the program in-house rather than buying an expensive and "dark" John Wells production for a hefty price tag.

Nikki Finke also reported that "Trauma" could be next to face the axe, with less than 6 million viewers. Barely surprising. And I also bet that the new JJ Abrams project, as well as a few other shows, will be fast-tracked for midseason, once all the drama slates are left vacant.

In conclusion, an interesting analysis from a NPR specialist.

On and off

2009-10-08T23:59:00.001+02:00

Due to the fact that I'm pretty busy nowadays (what with the new design and all), for the next week or two (basically until A TV Calling 2.0 is live), I'll only be posting here and there instead of daily.
At least now when I post it'll be something worthwhile! (wink, wink)
Don't go far though, there is still going to be some fresh content by Lordy.

Reservoir Turtles

2009-10-07T23:48:00.001+02:00

Miramax is having such a tough year they decided to remake one of their classics by mashing it up with another property:

Five under-the-radar movies you should watch

2009-10-06T23:58:00.010+02:00

Many movies are made each year, a few are box-office successes, and even less garner critical acclaim. Some great movies unfortunately pass through all the cracks and are almost never heard of, let alone recognized.
This post is here to repair this terrible mistake with the five "under-the-radar" films you should check out right now.
The films are here listed alphabetically, so pay no attention to the order they're in.

Blindness

Crew and Cast: Julianne Moore stars in a movie helmed by Cidade de Deus/The Constant Gardener’s director, Fernando Meirelles. Don McKellar adapted the José Saramago novel of the same name. Also in the cast are Danny Glover, Mark Ruffalo, Alice Braga and Gael Garcia Bernal.

IMDb’s one-line pitch: A city is ravaged by an epidemic of instant "white blindness". Those first afflicted are quarantined by the authorities in an abandoned mental hospital where the newly created "society of the blind" quickly breaks down.

Why you should watch it: Besides the gut-wrenching performances, the movie offers a brutal (albeit allegorical) view at our society.
Says LAT's Cristiana Ferraz Coimbra:

In both book and film, blindness is not only a physical condition but a metaphor for the darker side of human nature: prejudice, selfishness, violence and willful indifference.

Its portrayal of the blind community has on the other hand been deemed controversial. Make your own mind by seeing the film.

Brick

Crew and Cast: Rian Johnson wrote and directed this indie film starring Joseph Gordon-Levitt in the title role. He is accompanied by Nora Zehetner, Emilie de Ravin and Matt O’Leary.

IMDb’s one-line pitch: A teenage loner pushes his way into the underworld of a high school crime ring to investigate the disappearance of his ex-girlfriend.

Why you should watch it: If you like film noir or hardboiled detective fiction (such as The Maltese Falcon), this one’s for you. Brick is the kind of film you need to rewatch to start understanding what's going on, and the dialogue is so fine-tuned it makes you wonder if those high-school characters aren't going to suddenly transform into Humphrey Bogart or Gloria Grahame.
You can see this is a passion project of Johnson's. He even offers on his website the shooting script annotated with footnotes!
There's also the great Joseph Gordon-Levitt in it. As to why this should be reason enough to see the movie, that's for another post.

Children of Men

Crew and Cast: Adapted for the screen by Alfonso Cuarón (director of Y tu mamá también) based on P.D. James’ novel of the same name. Clive Owen has the title role. Julianne Moore, Michael Caine and Chiwetel Ejiofor are also present.

IMDb’s one-line pitch: In 2027, in a chaotic world in which humans can no longer procreate, a former activist agrees to help transport a miraculously pregnant woman to a sanctuary at sea, where her child's birth may help scientists save the future of humankind.

Why you should watch it: Where to start? First, the directing is incredible.
Talk about awe-inspiring single-shot sequences! One of them even lasts for seven minutes and a half.
As for the story, it is, in my opinion, one of the best adaptation of a novel ever done. Its depiction of this bleak future is simply astounding
To be honest, it would probably take weeks to list all the reasons why Children of Men is a science-fiction classic. Wikipedia has actually a very detailed page on the many, many themes and complex production of the dystopian film, though you should first see the movie.

Lars and the Real Girl

Crew and Cast: Written by Six Feet Under’s Nancy Oliver and directed by United States of Tara’s Craig Gillespie, the drama stars Ryan Gosling. There’s also in the mix Emily Mortimer, Patricia Clarkson, Paul Schenider, and a sex-doll.

IMDb’s one-line pitch: A delusional young guy strikes up an unconventional relationship with a doll he finds on the Internet.

Why you should watch it: Well, Ryan Gosling is great (as is the rest of the cast), and the story is atypical to say the least (a sex-doll as a central character?).
Nancy Oliver’s screenplay was actually nominated at the Oscars, WGA Awards and won a Humanitas Prize. Kudos to her.

Oldboy

Crew and Cast: Adapted for the screen by Chan-wook Park (director of Mr. Vengance, Lady Vengeance, and the recent Bakjwi a.k.a. Thirst) based on a Nobuaki Minegishi manga. South Korean actor Choi Min-sik plays the title role.

IMDb’s one-line pitch: After being kidnapped and imprisoned for 15 years, Oh Dae-Su is released, only to find that he must find his captor in 5 days.

Why you should watch it: Probably the most well-known movie on this list given its international status (it won, amongst other prizes, Cannes' Grand Prix).
This thriller is at its core a dark and twisted tale of revenge, part of the filmmaker's Vengance Trilogy. There's also a live octopus being eaten whole and one of the most memorable continuous take ever made.
Unfortunately, an American remake is currently in preparation. Given its somewhat scandalous side, this doesn't bode well for the American "reimagination."

It's now time for you to rent some movies out.
Enjoy.

Colbert Bump Remix

2009-10-05T23:51:00.000+02:00

I'm speechless.

Four Hundred

2009-10-04T15:31:00.000+02:00

Here we go again!

Tips and stories from around the Web, Part 2

2009-10-03T23:54:00.002+02:00

Being deep in the renovations, you may have noticed the lack of fresh enjoyable content. And, like in mid-June, don't worry, it's coming.
Meanwhile, here's a collection of the most interesting articles from the past few days.

As you may know, yesterday was The Twilight Zone’s 50th anniversary. On October 2, 1959, CBS broadcast the first Zone episode, written by Rod Serling himself.
For this occasion, The New York Times’ Dave Itzkoff wrote a piece about the classic anthology series over here.
There is also this great interview with Sterling dating back before the premiere of the show.

Another anniversary is The Blair Witch Project's, which this year celebrates its 10-year mark.
Jeff Otto over at Bloody Disgusting has an article on how the movie revolutionized marketing by introducing the now-called viral component into the mix.

Can you believe it's been ten years since THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT took the world by storm? Remember the build-up? Those mysterious posters months before release making everyone think it was a documentary? “In October of 1994 three student filmmakers disappeared in the woods near Burkittsville, Maryland while shooting a documentary... A year later their footage was found,” read the eerie teaser.

Two big news stories these last couple of weeks have been Dick Cook's eviction from the Disney Corp. and David Letterman's admission of his sexual relationships with a few of his staffers.

Following Cook’s ousting, Peter Bart from Variety asked a simple question:

There were rants in the media last week that Bob Iger, the Disney CEO, had not been sufficiently respectful in terminating his venerable studio chairman, Dick Cook.
I can understand this position, except for one issue: Is there really such a thing as a "respectful termination"?

As for Letterman, Verne Gay exposes eight dangers that may face Letterman now that he's publicly admitted about his sex stories.

And in case you were wondering about My Little Pony’s villain, Overthinking It has posted its own in-depth analysis of why The Smooze is one of the greatest villains ever.

Redesign

2009-10-02T23:48:00.000+02:00

Design should never say, “Look at me.” It should always say, “Look at this.”
— David Craib

As previously hinted, I’ve been working for the past weeks on "something special" for the blog.
It is now time to (partially) reveal what this mysterious project is.
Although far from being over, I’m currently in the process of redesigning the site for a future move on a proper webhost and platform. The permalinks shouldn’t change much; everything will just be cleaner, more accessible, and better looking. Especially the Archives and Labels that are pretty much a mess right now.
If you’re interested in my advancements, I’ll be tweeting the updates.
When the time comes, I’ll transfer all the posts and content for a total relabeling. This process will most likely last a week in itself with about 400 posts to revitalize, so a limited blog shutdown should be expected.
Don’t worry though, this might still be weeks away, so don’t expect any sudden changes out of the blue.

Back in bold

2009-10-01T23:49:00.000+02:00

A few NBC news stories surfaced today, such as the networking ordering Madagascar and Monsters vs. Aliens specials from DreamWorks Animation.

NBC will air its "Monsters" half-hour special on Oct. 28, with voices by Reese Witherspoon, Seth Rogen, Hugh Laurie, Will Arnett, Kiefer Sutherland and Rainn Wilson. "Merry Madagascar" will air Nov. 17, with voices by Ben Stiller, Chris Rock, David Schwimmer, Jada Pinkett Smith, Cedric The Entertainer, Carl Reiner and Andy Richter.

There was also this spec pilot by Felicity’s J.J. Abrams & Josh Reims which got sold to the highest bidder, the peacock. Reims is most known for his work on family-centered dramas such as Brothers & Sisters and Dirty Sexy Money.
The still-untitled show sounds like a Mr. & Mrs. Smith, The Series: Spy Edition. Indeed, it centers around two spies, husband and wife. Not much else is known though.

There’s also some business news with Comcast supposedly on the verge of acquiring NBC Universal, even though both parties are currently qualifying these “rumors” as “inaccurate.”

Chez FX, unsurprisingly both Terriers and Lights Out just got their 13-episode series orders.
We’ve already seen what both those series entailed, though if you have a short memory span, just know that the former, by Shawn Ryan and Ted Griffin, stars Donal Logue and Michael Raymond-James as an ex-cop and his BFF hot-shot starting their own unlicensed PI business.
As for Lights Out:

[It centers] around a former heavyweight boxing champion with pugilistic dementia (a disorder slowly leading to complete memory loss) struggling to support his family, including his wife, a pediatric orthopedic surgeon. The boxer is also forced to become a debt enforcer.
The pilot was co-written by The Bucket List's Justin Zackham and Phillip Noyce and the show described as more family-centered à la Sopranos than The Shield.

Holt McCallany plays the leading man, Patrick “Lights” Leary.
Terriers and Lights Out are respectively scheduled for a summer and late 2010 premiere.
By picking up all of its six pilots this season, FX is trying to regain its lost momentum by introducing a new wave of original programming.

In other TV news, Melissa Joan Hart is returning to television (well, besides her dancing with the stars).
ABC Family has greenlit an untitled series by Bob Young & David Kendall, with Joseph Lawrence as a co-star. Joan Hart will play “Hailey, a political dynasty wild child-turned-politician who takes in her teenage niece and pre-adolescent nephew when her sister goes to prison and her brother-in-law flees. She turns for help to Jack (Lawrence), who, desperate for a job, moves in and becomes the family's many.”

There's also Spider-Man/Milk/Pineapple Express’ James Franco who is joining for two months the ABC soap drama General Hospital.
What the hell is he doing on a soap? Perhaps the pot finally got to his head.
Also, I thought he was in college. Does he have that much free time? Or does he need money?
Quick, someone give him a loan or something!

And finally, some good news:
Christopher Nolan’s Inception will come out on July 16, 2010 in IMAX!
Hell yes.

This day in TV news

2009-09-30T23:15:00.003+02:00

Alright, folks. So, since Lex is working on something special, I thought I'd share a few thoughts on recent TV developments.

As you may know, ABC has launched last week a new block of comedies, with really strong ratings and favorable reviews. At least, for the 2 that aired last week, and the ones ABC put the most marketing moolah on: "Modern Family" and "Cougar Town", with Courteney Cox. But, as the remaining 2 premiere tonight, critics are less than favorable.

"Hank" and "The Middle" both star the leads of FOX cancelled sitcom of 2007-2008, "Back To You": Kelsey Grammer and Patricia Heaton. Though it seems that "The Middle" is a carefully subtle rehash of "Malcolm in The Middle", though with more Janitor, critics have it in for "Hank", starring Grammer as a fired CEO who tries to bounce back.

As it stands, the show may very well suck, though it can still improve from the pilot, if the audience gives it some slack (and don't tune out). But one baffling review came from Tim Goodman, from SF Gate:

What makes no sense about "Hank" - beyond the fact that it even exists - is that the sitcom is an old-school, multicamera affair with that intrusive laugh track. The three sitcoms that follow it are all single-camera comedies with no laugh track. "Hank" sticks out - and not in a good way.

OK, first of all, who put into the critics' brain this moronic idea that multicamera sitcoms are "old-school"? Almost all of CBS comedy block are multicamera, and they are among the most-watched shows on network television. Moreover, with "How I Met Your Mother" and "The Big Bang Theory", CBS makes the impossible weekly: attracting younger viewers every Monday. Now, Becky, 15, from Illinois, will rather watch Ted, Barney and Robin than Heroes season 4. And laugh track never was the matter. The matter should be whether the show is funny or not. If "Hank" has to stick out like a sore thumb out of ABC's comedy block, it will be because it's just not funny. Not because a so-called 1987 way of shooting a sitcom.

In other comedy news, BBC2 and Showtime announced a new partnership to produce a 6-episode series called "Episodes". Apparently, it revolves around a couple of Brits whose comedy creation gets adapted for the American market. Behind it are David Crane (one of the creators of "Friends" and "The Class") and one of the "Mad About You" producers. And it's starring....Matt LeBlanc. Yup, Joey from "Friends" in a dumbed-down version of himself.

OK. There's so much to process from this news, where do I get started.

1) So, what's the idea for Showtime? Get its own version of "Entourage" or its own version of "Extras"? Hollywood satire can be plain boring. Or bland, as can attest the 6 seasons already produced of "Entourage". (Just a personal opinion here.)

2)Out of all the "Friends", you pass on Matthew "Motherfucking" Perry but settle for Matt LeBlanc? What is wrong with you?

3) In a weird case of art-imitating-life, no less than three UK sitcoms were adapted into American pilots in the past season: "The IT Crowd", for NBC, with David Guarascio and Moses Port from "Aliens In America"...uh...fame?; "Absolutely Fabulous", and "Spaced", both for FOX. The latter two were welcomed with nails-on-chalkboard reactions from the original fans.

4)Will the show revolve around adapting a British settling into an American joke, with very different writing and boundaries? And if so, how is it a great idea?

5)Earlier this year, Showtime passed on ALL of its pilots in contention. And they decide to restart their development slate with THIS?!?

That's all for today.

Cry me tears

2009-09-29T23:56:00.000+02:00

A short post today to quickly talk about the ratings.
They're in, and people are actually watching TV!
Well, to be fair, people are watching the new shows on the air, but that’s a revolution on to itself.
For NCIS: LA, FlashForward, even the Vampire Diaries and the Good Wife, the scores are good.
For some though, the ratings are, uhm, bad.
When you get worse ratings than My Own Worst Enemy, like Trauma did last night, it’s time to call it quits. Yes, even with your astronomical special effects (which are not that impressive quite frankly).

In sad news territory, the first images of The Beaver have surfaced.
And it looks as pathetic as one might expect with Mel Gibson in the lead.

A shame given how great the script was...

I am an asshole.

2009-09-28T23:56:00.003+02:00

Just as Yom Kippur ends, I find out someone has posted the following comment regarding my “Fringe is unoriginal” post:

If you honestly think that your stupid post will steer people away from watching Fringe, YOU ARE SADLY MISTAKEN! Grow up, asshole!

Okay, my cover has been blown: I’m an immature asshole.

Indeed, I’m really bitter about being rejected from the Fringe writing staff so I decided to write a two-parter out of pure spite.
That’s basically the same reason why Jon Stewart decided to bash CNBC. The network had rejected him the year prior from being their new spokesperson.

I acknowledge that Sliders and the Kromaggs are pure inventions of mine that I retroactively created after seeing the Fringe Season Two premiere.
I went back in time impersonating both Tracy Tormé and David Peckinpah, and later went on to get that “parallel universe show” made, with all the while in the back of my mind this vague idea that, a decade later, I would post on some semi-obscure blog how this awkwardly-named series Fringe looks so much like a poor man’s Sliders.

So, yeah, I agree with you that I’m an asshole for showing the many ways something pretending to "revolutionize a genre" or be “original” actually is not.

Secondly, I also admit that I was angling for people to stop watching Fringe altogether after reading my post.
Not to be an egomaniac on top of being an asshole, but it's pretty obvious everyone follows my advices.

If we take a look at what happened in the past year:
- The Middleman ended its second season with ground-breaking ratings;
- Stephen Colbert was named president both in the Marvel universe and our actual universe;
- The Jay Leno Show got taken off the air a week before it premiered;
- The MacGruber movie was never made;
- And, just recently, Flight of the Conchords and Breaking Bad won Emmys for being the best shows in their categories.

Though, for the record, I wasn’t asking anyone to stop watching Fringe. I was merely pointing out the awkward similitude the show has with another science-fiction series dating back to the mid-90s.

Mea culpa.

100 in 4

2009-09-27T18:27:00.000+02:00

Unfortunately, I haven't had the time today to write a script review.
So instead, here's a compilation of the one hundred greatest viral vids ever (in under four minutes).

What a time waster.

FlashForward premiere: See how I (don't) care

2009-09-26T23:59:00.018+02:00

FlashForward premiere last Thursday at long last.
I've been talking about it since last year and read at the time the pilot script. I liked (loved?) it, so, needless to say, I was anxiously waiting for the final result. I wanted to like this series premiere, I really, really wanted to.

And, in the end, I was very disappointed.
Perhaps I expected more from it, but the pilot script delivered, so how come the end result didn’t?
Let’s take a look at the various negative points from the broadcast version.

First, the opening. Okay, I get it, you want to hook the viewer in. But come on, where’s the originality? The opening scene was like a rehash of Lost’s. Even down to the character’s facial expressions!

But one of my biggest quarrel has got to do with the directing. I’m sorry David S. Goyer, but you don’t know how to shoot. What’s up with you zooming in on everything? Did you just discover the “zoom” function on your camcorder?
The same can be said about all the color filters (blue and orange). For a second there I thought I was on a Canadian show.
In reality, the shot of the (real opening) suburban setting, coupled with the lame transition before it (or was that the credits?) were my first clues that I was watching a Lifetime movie of the week.

Another being the scope of the disaster getting neglected altogether. It’s as if no one cares than a billion people died almost instantly! At least with Lost you could feel the mayhem following the plane crash. Here it’s just people going from one point to the next. There’s barely any interaction. Important conversations are discussed casually, and what should be intense emotions or scenes are almost done matter-of-factly.
The chilling “I dreamt there were no more good days” uttered by Charlie Benford was supposed to be a major moment hinting at the chaos ahead. Instead, you have an almost laughable (dare I say clichéd) scene.
There’s just no soul to it, and Goyer doesn’t care. He keeps on moving to the next scene. Hell, even the flash-forward, arguably the most pivotal scene, is supposed to last 2 minutes and 17 seconds, yet on the show it’s barely 50 seconds!
You don’t have time to know the characters either, they’re like zombies. The relationships all fall flat on their faces. The “I hate you” notes left by Olivia to her husband seemed more mean than anything else. You basically don’t feel for the characters. The scene where Bryce Varley is on the verge of killing himself is barely glanced at. I was expecting a better set-up than him randomly walking up to the beach, pulling a gun, and ten seconds later having his flash-forward. That wasn’t what the script called for!
In the script, actual character beats opened and closed the series premiere. The show began and closed with Mark Benford in his daily life. Instead, here we got a wannabe Lost opening and an OMG moment at the end.

Continuing on the Lost comparison, Ramin Djawadi’s music score was pretty generic. I was awaiting a Michael Giacchino-type level of orchestra; all I got were some bland notes.
The VFX were also pretty awful, not even worthy of Battlestar Galactica.

There’s even this out-of-place kangaroo echoing Lost’s polar bear.
You do realize that you don’t need an exotic animal in a random spot to do a good mystery show, right?

Overall, what worked on the page didn’t work on screen.
I don’t blame the writing though, I blame the plain directing and editing.
A two-hour premiere (and a better-suited director!) would probably have given enough time to develop both the story and the characters. Sadly, this wasn't the case.
Better luck next time.

The MGM ever-delayed debacle: In the jungle, no one can hear you roar

2009-09-25T23:03:00.000+02:00

So, I was busy writing a blog on another subject which may or may not see the light of day later, and I come across this story, written by Deadline’s Nikki Finke, about how MGM is on the verge of bankruptcy, and has a $4 billion debt to erase. Actually the past 20 years were a bumpy ride for the firm of Leo the Lion (and his family, The Lionhearts. Yes, I did my homework again, but my curiosity knows no bounds.)

So, I’ll do the Cliff’s Notes version, but the firm with the Lion has been passing from owner to owner. First, there was the very Français Pathé Frères, and the French bank Crédit Lyonnais. During their tenure, successful movies like Thelma and Louise were made. There was also businessman Kirk Kerkorian, who owned MGM no less than three times in the span of 20 years, and finally, from 2004 onwards, Sony and several equity partners, trust funds and banks. But during those 7 years, no really successful movies were produced to speak of.

It’s no wonder that MGM has only one remaining viable franchise, and that is the 007 one. The reason why the studio can’t exploit its catalogue is simple: all the pre-1986 classic movies and cartoons like “Tom and Jerry” and the Tex Avery shorts were sold to Ted Turner and Time Warner more than 20 years ago. Sure, MGM bought off other failing studios such as Orion Pictures. But even moderate successes produced by Orion, like the first “Addams Family”, are not their property.

In short: upcoming Blu-Ray restored and remastered editions of “The Wizard of Oz” and “Gone With the Wind”, sure to garner profit from movie lovers….won’t be saving MGM, even though it was originally produced by the studio.

So, there it is, folks: a studio with a whopping 4,000 movies in its vaults, produced in-house or by other studios, and unable to exploit them correctly.

In 2006, worldwide distribution for DVD and Blu-Ray reverted to Fox Entertainment. Did you hear about any “special editions” of forgotten movies such as “Heaven’s Gate”, the swan song of Michael Cimino? Neither did I. Oh sure, there was the “Rocky” collection, but nothing really groundbreaking.

Instead...
This is what we get, for example.

Each MGM DVD of “catalogue” has the same tasteless cover art. I know of…hum, heard of adult DVDs that have better design than this.

Sure, the Stargate franchise does well on DVD. And apparently, two movies are on the way (one for SG-1, another for Atlantis), and the premiere of “Stargate Universe” will surely reboot the franchise...once again.
But then, other long-running franchises such as “The Outer Limits” second incarnation have barely been released on DVD, in their unedited, non-syndication form. Nevertheless, they are one of the better-remembered sci-fi series of the 1990s? So...what’s the hold up? Poor sales can be fixed with the right marketing. Why not start producing more TV shows again?

In the past few years, MGM has taken bizarre decisions. It’s not a studio that big, never has been since the 1980s. Under the supervision of Harry Sloan, its biggest recent move was the hiring of Tom Cruise and Paula Wagner to oversee a “reborn” United Artists. To prove his willingness, Cruise starred in the first two movies: one was “Lions for Lambs”, written by Matthew Carnahan and directed by Robert Redford. It was sure Oscar-bait, right? Wrong.
The movie tanked, and the “New York Times” estimated that UA lost $50 million over the promotion of the movie. Bryan Singer’s “Valkyrie” fared better, but still underperformed. Now all development at UA seems to have stopped. Bringing over Mary Parent from Universal led to an “ambitious” slate of films, including Drew Goddard’s “Cabin in The Woods” slated for release in 2010. So yeah, the upcoming remake of “Fame” will do well, if not domestically, at least internationally. But bringing in trucks of cash for the studio? Nope!

MGM partnered with, among others, The Weinstein Co. to finance a lot of their recent movies, but it doesn’t even ear n a dime in DVD sales (Harvey and Bob do, through Genius Corp.). So, last month, they brought in turnaround specialist Steven Cooper to oversee a potential restructuring, that, from the look of things, may come sooner rather than later. Steven Cooper worked miracles for Krispy Kreme Doughnuts; will he tidy up the MGM kitchen as well? Compared to Lions Gate, which is a mini-major with Oscar-winning projects (Crash being the most famous), the Lion firm pales. Lions Gate has profitable filmmakers (African-American mogul Tyler Perry), and great cash cows in the Saw franchise, as well as a flourishing TV division, producing Weeds and Mad Men. Why can’t MGM do the same? When DreamWorks severed its ties with Paramount and John Lesher, the president of the studio, got shown the door, his replacement was ordered to put more projects in the pipeline and revive franchises. It shouldn’t be that hard for MGM to follow the same template.

But in order to achieve these things, it seems that time has run out. The goodwill of the shareholders, too.

The unoriginality of Fringe (Part Two)

2009-09-24T23:23:00.003+02:00

Following yesterday's post (where we saw why The X-Files still surpasses Fringe), we'll now be discussing how the Abrams/Orci/Kurtzman show is actually getting its ideas from another source.
It seems that with this “parallel universe” story, the writers are beginning to get “inspired by” another science-fiction show, Sliders.

Yet again, I'll be talking about Fringe up to, and including, its Second Season premiere. In addition, I'll be making numerous references to major Sliders plotlines, so tread carefully (even though the show has been off the air for almost a decade).

Is imitation the sincerest form of flattery?
Fringe is no more "science” than it is “fiction,” especially now that we’ve been officially introduced to parallel worlds.
In reality, it’s just a convenient way to answer everything that’s unanswerable. Unsurprisingly, a self-cutting neck is not scientifically realistic, despite what the writers want us to think. Stop wondering why someone has a bionic arm, the answer is obvious: it comes from another universe!
And if you’re still thinking that the writers know their science, just take a look at who wrote (and directed) the season premiere: Akiva Goldsman, the writer behind the 1998 movie adaptation of Lost in Space with Matt LeBland (no typo). If I recall correctly, that movie was actually a documentary about space exploration. I mean, its use of “time bubbles” was simply astonishing.

In the meantime, here's a brief history of Sliders.
From 1995 to 1999, the series ran for five seasons, including three on FOX. Created by Tracy Tormé & Robert K. Weiss, the series dealt with a group of people that get sent to parallel dimensions. Tormé and Weiss “left” the show after several problems with the network. Ultimately, SciFi Channel took over after the series’ third season, but by then David Peckinpah, who’d been made showrunner the year prior, had already ran the show into the ground by completely abandoning the concept of alternate histories and going into a more action/adventure direction. Sliders at its core was a show about the exploration of parallel worlds (which isn’t what Fringe is about--yet), but the series shifted focus during Season Three with the introduction of the Kromaggs (more on that in a second).

Sure, as soon as the multiverse is used on a show, Sliders is always brought up, but this time though it's with good reason as the similarities between the two are beyond eerie.
Ironically, the writers seems to take from Sliders its worst storylines.

The main one being of course the Kromaggs, a parallel version of humanoid primates, and “a technologically advanced and highly militaristic race bent on conquering all human-dominated alternate Earths.”
They also have psychic abilities, such as the power “to project illusions and plant post-hypnotic suggestions into human minds. One episode had one Kromagg attempt to force data out of someone's minds by touch, similar to Star Trek's Vulcan "mind meld”.” Moreover, they also have “healing powers, whereby they can heal people with their minds.”

Okay, so now that you know what Kromaggs are, let’s take a look at the two main opposing forces in the Fringe ‘verse, symbolized by the mysterious group called Zerstörung durch Fortschritte der Technologie ("Destruction through Technological Progress" or simply ZFT).
io9 briefed us on the group’s motives:

Bioterrorist group ZFT is responsible for many of the experiments the Fringe team investigates. ZFT's extensive network of scientists perform bizarre and often deadly experiments on other human beings — like infecting a woman with a form of vampiric syphilis or growing fast-aging humans. In addition to their biohacks, ZFT possesses some technologies developed by Walter Bishop, including a teleportation device.
But there's also a method behind ZFT's biological madness. ZFT members operate according to a manifesto that states two key things: there is another dimension more scientifically advanced than our own, and in the coming interdimensional war, only one dimension can survive. ZFT is out to create an army of biologically enhanced supersoldiers who will fight for our dimension in that war. But there's also a chapter missing from ZFT's manifesto — one that outlines ethics.

In the second season premiere of Fringe, we got introduced to this enemy from the “other side,” notably a shape-shifting soldier that is both very agile and very resistant.

So, to summarize, we have, on both shows, technologically advanced supersoldiers with powers, from a parallel universe, trying to destroy humans and other worlds.
It’s pretty much the exact same story.
Oh, and the shape-shifters also look like Kromaggs.

The similarities do not stop there.
Peter Bishop’s parallel world origins seem oddly comparable to that of another main character from Sliders, Quinn Mallory. Even though for the majority of the series we believe Mallory is from Earth Prime, it turns out that he’s not.

[Quinn Mallory is] from Kromagg Prime, an Alternate earth where humans and Kromaggs coexisted until a civil war broke out between the two species. He learned that he was transported to Earth Prime when he was a baby and left with his parents' doubles. When his parents came back to get him, his adoptive parents were too attached to him so they hid Quinn, and Quinn was raised on Earth Prime.

Replace “Quinn Mallory” by Peter Bishop, “parents” with Walter Bishop, and “Kromaggs” by parallel world enemies, you’ve got the whole series’ arc for Peter and his enigmatic past.

Arguably, one might even say another major plotline was ripped from Sliders, its fifth season's borefest around Mallory (also known as Quinn2 or Quinn Mallory 2.0).
In the show, two of the main characters (Quinn and Colin Mallory) were “fused” into one. During the whole season, they’re trying to find a way to unmerge the two.
Sounds familiar?
That’s because the same storyline ran for half a season on Fringe. The consciousness of John Scott gets inadvertently transferred into her former partner’s mind, Olivia Dunham. There was even an episode where Olivia’s persona was about to be lost forever. Fortunately, John finally leaves Olivia alone midway through the series’ first season.

Last but not least, we have the mysterious character of William Bell, who seems to overshadow not only ZFT but several parallel universes thanks to his Massive Dynamic conglomerate.
In the second season premiere of Sliders, we meet a mysterious character named the Sorcerer (turns out, he’s an alternate version of Quinn Mallory). Anyways, this “Sorcerer” seems to be able to control the multiverse technology in the same way William Bell does.
For one, he knows much more about the tech than anyone else who’s ever been encountered on the show. He’s also able to capitalize on his interdimensional knowledge, the same way Massive Dynamic exports the numerous advancements it gets from other worlds.
Ding, ding, ding! You're a winner.

If we look deep enough, other resemblances will probably be found with other science-fiction series.
Who knows, perhaps the writers will totally shift focus and lose their "evil alternates" stories. Probably not though.
But at least now, you've been warned about Fringe's unoriginality.

The unoriginality of Fringe (Part One)

2009-09-23T23:37:00.007+02:00

Similarities between FOX's Fringe and other science-fiction shows have been going on for some time, mainly The X-Files.
Ever since Fringe premiered, the first show that pops into everyone's mind is the one about aliens and conspiracies.

A little warning before we start: I'll be talking about the Second Season premiere of Fringe, so, if you haven't seen the episode yet, check out in the meantime this cute ad.

Coast clear?
Okay, now that we’re among adults, let’s get real.

I'm not going to talk about the differences and similarities of Fringe vs. The X-Files, given that this has already been done before (kinda).
That said, I recently came across a so-called "article" that lists "10 Reasons Why 'Fringe' Is Better Than 'The X-Files'."
I should warn you now that if you read this, chances are you’ll have a heart attack in the following ten seconds.

I was so taken aback by this piece of--uhm--journalism (?) that I've decided to counter it right here and now.
Let's get it on.

1. No aliens. OK, there’s an alternative universe, but at least everybody’s human.

So, besides the fact that we don’t know if they are indeed human (just look at their super-powers), you’re saying that Fringe is better than The X-Files because it doesn’t have aliens?
I take it you mean that aliens are bad.
If that's so, then I’m sorry that Star Trek, Star Wars or Battlestar Galactica, are such horrible, horrible fiction works.

2. The mysteries seem more solvable. Of course, there are unanswered questions at the end of every episode. But they’re not too stupid to beggar belief.

Are we watching the same show? And by “the same show” I mean the FOX TV series produced by Bad Robot, the sole company that actually takes pride in the fact that you’ll never get concrete answers out of their mysteries (see Alias, Lost, Cloverfield, or even Felicity’s mystery box).

3. The characters don’t take themselves too seriously. There’s Agent Olivia Dunham (Anna Torv), who heads up the investigations. Peter Bishop (Dawson Creek’s Joshua Jackson), the wise-cracking slack genius who helps her by taking care of his father, Dr. Walter Bishop (John Noble), who is completely insane. I mean really, Mulder did all that pouting and screaming and what did it get him? Nothing.

First, Mulder doesn't pout. Second, he not only was right about the Aliens, but he ended up in a relationship with Scully (and a baby). I wouldn't call that "nothing."
And I'm pretty sure Olivia Dunham does take things seriously, especially when we're talking about innocent people dying everywhere.

4. The pseudoscience is at least theoretically possible and doesn’t require great leaps of the imagination. There’s a running storyline in which computer geniuses are trying to download information from a dead man’s brain.

Should I point out that you're using as an example someone downloading a dead guy’s thoughts?
You’re countering your own argument here lady. This isn't even remotely "theoretically plausible." Nothing on Fringe is.
For some believable Science vs. Fiction comments, Popular Mechanics has numerous articles on the subject.

5. Every episode has a beginning, a middle, and an end.

They've finally found out how to tell a story, nice!
It's certainly not like that other show with cliffhangers, random act breaks, and the bad guy never being caught.

6. There are no love affairs—yet.

The “love quadrangle” (John/Olivia/Peter/Rachel) begs to differ.
Oh, and check out that Nina Sharp/Phillip Broyles kiss, it was in the freakin’ season two premiere!

7. Leonard Nimoy is in it. He is the shadowy head of Massive Dynamic, a huge multinational corporation that is a combination of GE, Microsoft, and Blackwater.

Lenoard Nimoy was also in Zombies of the Stratosphere. So what?
Anyway, he wasn't even in the premiere (by the way, nice dodge from the writers of last season's cliffhanger). He'll probably be seen only a few minutes for the whole season, max.

8. There’s a lot more racial diversity in Fringe. Yeah, X-Files had a few black people, but it really was this weird world where people of other hues were mostly used as plot devices.

Can someone tell me why the hell this is an argument for "why Fringe is better than The X-Files"?
I wasn’t aware skin color equated to talent. Robert de Niro has won more Oscars than Marlon Wayans, but Dennis Haysbert is obviously tons of time a better actor than, say, Larry the Cable Guy.
The issue of diversity, though laudable, is irrelevant to the actual quality of a show (or its writing).
Meanwhile, Astrid Farnswrth continues to be the definition of pointless character/plot device.

9. Because Fringe actually knows where its storylines are going, it doesn’t rely on filler episodes to distract you from the fact that you’re being sold a bag of nothing.

That was an ironic statement, right?
(See point number 2)

10. Fringe is worth watching just for Noble. His characterization of Bishop, the mad scientist at the heart of the show, is at turns brilliant, exasperating, hysterical and tragic. It’s the best of The X-Files in one man.

Though I don’t disagree with Bishop being the best character on the show, like the old proverb says, a chain is only as strong as its weakest link.
And Fringe has plenty of them.

All done...
Almost.

Regarding its faux-procedural aspect, Fringe does, in a way, take a hint from The X-Files.
However, for its more mythological storylines, the writers seem to be more inspired by another science-fiction series, Sliders.
As to how, tune in tomorrow.
(Oh yeah, I went the cliffhanger route)

Elephant Appreciation Day

2009-09-22T23:54:00.000+02:00

Today is Elephant Appreciation Day.

September 22 was declared Elephant Appreciation Day in 1996 by Mission Media, a graphics and publishing firm who got the day included in “Chase’s Calendar of Events.” Why bother celebrating elephants? Mission Media says elephants deserve a day of their own because they are the largest land mammal of our era and are undeservedly threatened with extinction.

What better way to celebrate this magnificent occasion than to show to the world the best picture ever taken: an elephant eating a giant pumpkin.

And in these tough times, everyone needs to cheer up:

Ha ha.

Put down the remote (Emmys 2009)

2009-09-21T22:49:00.001+02:00

The Emmys still fail.
There, I said it.
Despite Neil Patrick Harris doing an incredible job (obviously way superior to last year's abysmal opening), most of the results did suck.

Obviously, there were no major surprises regarding who won the major awards.
Overhyped much?

On a completely random subject, I was surprised to see Elisabeth Moss kissing Fred Armisen.
Turns out, they're engaged.
(Yeah, I'm not one to peruse the E! Online pages)

And was that a dig from Glenn Close at the poor writing from Damages’ Second Season?
Said Close:

I wanna begin by thanking Todd, Glenn and Daniel for giving me, probably, maybe, the character of my lifetime -- depending on what they do this season. (awkward laugh)

Anyways, Little Dorrit garnered the most Emmy wins of the night with a total of seven, closely followed by Grey Gardens.
I was pretty disappointed that Generation Kill didn’t win best mini-series. Poor Flight of the Conchords never had a chance either.
30 Rock is at five, one more than...Pushing Daisies, the second TV show on the list!
Kristin Chenoweth winning was both surprising and well-deserved.
HBO dominated the Emmys with 21 awards (NBC comes in second with 16, ABC third with 11, and FOX fifth with 10).

It’s funny seeing how the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences categorizes the web-based wins.
For instance, the network (yes) for Dr. Horrible Sing-Along Blog (which won “Outstanding Special Class – Short-Format Live-Action Entertainment Program”) is actually drhorrible.com.
For you Lost fans out there, in case you didn’t know, the show did win something else: "Outstanding Creative Achievement in Interactive Media (Fiction)", thanks to the latest Dharma Initiative ARG.
As you might have guessed, the same thing applies here; dharmawantsyou.com is listed instead of ABC or some other studio.
Ironically, this was the worst received of all Lost ARGs.
That, and the website is now dead.

Even the NBC web-based content (such as The Late Night with Jimmy Fallon Digital Experience) is not filed under NBC but NBC.com.
It’s certainly an interesting shift to note, especially given the fact that this year’s broadcast seemed to be under the theme of network failure.

Moving on to the other wins, I was very happy for both Bryan Cranston and Michael Emerson and was even more ecstatic to see Kristin Chenoweth win.
Cherry Jones is a great actress but her 24 material was pretty weak compared to the extraordinary In Treatment.
Sadly, Colbert didn’t win anything. I’m awaiting the fallout next Tuesday.
There was a bit of an emphasis this year on Battlestar Galactica (probably since it was its last season).
First, a few clips were shown in the "One Year of Drama" section. Pretty late in the game for that, especially given the quality of the final season.
Also, Bear McCreary's fantastic score for the series was used for the same section.
Pretty neat.

However, perhaps the most talked-about moment from last night's show was the "surprise" appearance of Dr. Horrible.
Now that was great.

On the polar opposite, we have CBS advertising in the middle of an acceptance speech the In Memoriam!
What the hell?!

Despite this little mishap, and a few skits that bombed (like that "greatest TV fan badly seated" one), these 61st Primetime Emmy Awards were definitely enjoyable, if only for Neil Patrick Harris.
Certainly not for their results though.

Paul (Script) - Review

2009-09-20T23:29:00.005+02:00

I read the script last night for the über-secret science-fiction comedy Paul. The film is being directed by Superbad/Adventureland’s Greg Mottola and was written by Simon Pegg & Nick Frost.
Albeit long (120 pages), the story was so immersive I read it all in one go.

Check out this incredible cast:

1st row: Nick Frost, Simon Pegg, Kristen Wiig
2nd row: Bill Hader, Jane lynch, Jason Bateman
3rd row: John Carroll Lynch, David Koechner, Jesse Plemons, Joe Lo Truglio
Not pictured: Blythe Danner, Jeffrey Tambor, Sigourney Weaver
Here’s the movie in a nutshell:
Alien (Paul) escapes from Secret Service.
Geeks (Clive and Graham) meet Alien.
Geeks and Alien go on the run from Secret Service Agents (Zoil, Haggard and O’Reilly).
Geeks and Alien kidnap on their way a religious freak (Ruth).
Geeks and Alien go on the run from said religious freak’s father (Moses).

The movie is not part of Pegg and Frost's "Blood and Ice Cream trilogy (comprised up til now of Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz).
Actually, Paul reverses the standard dynamic between the two by putting Frost as the lead and Pegg as the sidekick.

As usual though, they play the two main characters, respectively Clive Gollings and Graham Willy, two (sorta) stereotypical nerds. Clive authored Jelva, Alien Queen of the Varvak, a not-so-popular sci-fi book.
As they leave Comic-Con to visit Nevada's Extraterrestrial Highway (and Area 51), they encounter, you guessed it, Paul the alien. Seth Rogen will "MoCap" the character.
The Paul character would probably be best described as a cross between American Dad’s Roger and the "Take Me to Your Dealer” alien (the poster is actually referenced in the movie).
The former for his intellect and pop-culture knowledge, the latter for his physical appearance...and because he smokes pot.
I guess that's why they chose Seth Rogen (ha, ha, ha).

Wiig will portray Ruth, a Bible thumper that is both smart (!) and knowledgeable (!!). She gets (somewhat) inadvertently kidnapped by the group. John Carroll Lynch will be her dad, neither smart nor knowledgeable.
Jason Bateman plays the main Secret Service Agent, Lorenzo Zoil. He is followed by two other agents, Haggard and O'Reilly (Bill Hader and Joe Lo Truglio). Jeffrey Tambor is their boss, nicknamed "The Voice."
David Koechner and Jesse Plemons play Gus and Jake, two stupid meatheads while Jane Lynch depicts Pat, a waitress at the (real) Little A'Le'Inn.

As for Sigourney Weaver and Blythe Danner, I'm having a problem pointing out their role. While IMDb lists Weaver as playing Tara (the woman that pulled Paul out of his Roswell wreckage some 60-odd years ago), it seemed to me like it would fit more Danner (hell, Weaver wasn't even born in 1947).
That said, I have no clue what the extra character is.

There's also in the movie a cameo by a famous director (you might guess which), and as well a few scenes at Comic-Con.
At one point, Michael Biehn even makes an appearance (Clive is hoping to ask him if he feels that “the killing of Hicks and Newt in Alien 3, invalidates Ripley’s struggle at the closed of the previous installment.”).
Which makes you wonder what’s going on in the movie since Weaver (aka Ripley) has a role (not as herself), and there are no meta-joke about that either.

Anyways, now that you know the story and the characters, time to talk about the movie itself.
What's interesting to note is how atypical some of the things in the script are.

First, regarding the obligatory references.
Pegg and Frost know their way around pop culture, so it's obvious they're having a blast when they write those nods at many SF movies/TV shows.
What is funny however is that those nods aren't blatant at all.

For instance, there is at one point a Heroes reference (yes, that one).
Only, this is not a “Hiro/Claire" type of reference, it’s more, let’s just say, obscure.

CLIVE
She called her dog Paul?

PAUL
Least it wasn’t Mr. Muggles.

Yup, they just talked about the Bennet family dog, Mr. Muggles (dare I say a detail on Heroes).

The same can be said about every other nod in Paul (regarding their subtlely).
There are Battlestar Galactica, Star Trek, and Back to the Future allusions, but they do not involve jokes around Cylons, Spock/Kirk or Hoverboards.
There's even a Pokémon that gets mentioned (and no, not Pikachu or Mudkip)!
Other "tip of the hat" include (among many, many other movies/shows) The X-Files, V, E.T., and Encounter of the Third Kind .
By “tip of the hat” I’m not talking about reenactments (with one notable exception), rather verbal winks like above.
Some other references are even more subtle, and even more random.
Case in point with Jason Bateman’s character. He's named Lorenzo Zoil, an obvious hommage to the 1992 film Lorenzo’s Oil.
I have no clue why they chose this particular movie though.

The characters from the movie are also (for the most part) actually smart. Even Ruth the Evangelical is, like I pointed out before, knowledgeable!
Obviously, she doesn't believe in science, but at least she knows about it, and probably knows more about geography than our two hero nerds combined.

This leads me to my final point, and I know I'm burying the lead here, but Paul is a smart comedy.
Actually, it's way smarter than it might appear at first glance.

If anything, it tackles really well the whole Religion vs. Science debate, mixing both comical dialogues with sensible arguments.
Here is just one of the numerous examples contained in the movie:

RUTH
How can he be from another world? There is only one world. Our world, created by God the Father.

PAUL sits down next to GRAHAM. RUTH whimpers.

PAUL
Look, if it makes you feel any better, my existence only disproves the notion of the Abrahamic, Judeo-Christian God, as well as all single earth theologies. Science still hasn’t categorically rule out the notion of divinity, even though evolutionary biology suggest the non-existence of a creator by probability alone.

RUTH
How could that possibly make me feel any better?

PAUL
Jesus Christ, I was just trying to be nice!

Hopefully, all those dialogues won't lose their "serious" edge once they're done by Seth Rogen.

Nevertheless, Paul has what many comedies do not have: both heart and brain (and the funnies). Here is an example of a good, funny, and smart, R-rated comedy (unlike that other one).
The incredible script coupled with, yet again, a great cast, makes me think this will probably be Pegg and Frost's best movie to date.
As for its precise date of release, there is none yet, though it should come out in 2010. In the meantime, check out the many video blogs left on the official website.

Total Eclipse Of The Heart: The LEGO Brick Clip

2009-09-19T23:56:00.000+02:00

Why "Mad Men" is the anti-soap

2009-09-18T22:59:00.000+02:00

So, around a month ago, Lex posted a blog giving all the reasons why “Mad Men” is way overrated by the critics. While the show will, without a doubt, walk away with a lot of Emmys on Sunday, and the critic gushing will continue for a few years, I would like to make a few points regarding the show’s own merits. Those points, in my opinion, haven’t been made enough in the mainstream press, and really, who could blame them.

This week, we learned that Oprah Winfrey would host a 60s-themed show next week, in honor of “Mad Men”, with the Drapers on her couch, or rather, Jon Hamm and January Jones. It’s really cute of her, and any publicity is good publicity. As Lex would probably say, it continues to “crown” endlessly a show that has been marketed as “the little show that could, so it’s cool to root for it”. But by doing this stunt, Oprah misses the point of the show completely.

The show is meant to surgically deconstruct any good memories we may have had, or our parents may have had, of the swinging sixties. While “American Dreams”, a network show that was chronicling the same period-to be fair, the pilot episode of the show picks up after the Kennedy assassination, while Season 3 of “Mad Men” will probably end there-was perpetuating the myth of a solid family, through the Pryors, without omitting social issues and rampant segregation, “Mad Men” still portrays a corporate, sexist world full of cynicism, which may change too fast for the advertising employees that work there. But, most importantly, it chronicles the slow downfall of a marriage, those of the Drapers. Each season, the viewer anticipates the moment where Betty will walk away from Don, and sign divorce papers, only to be disappointed-last season, with the pregnancy, was seen as the final straw that can keep the household together.

And that leads me to the main point I want to make: “Mad Men” is not a soap opera. Nevermind the attractive cast, it takes great pleasure in making them the most unlikable characters on TV. There’s barely any love or interaction in the Draper household, no matter how effectively they try to keep it together. It’s reminiscent of the Tony/Carmela relationship in the final seasons of “The Sopranos”: the marriage was seen more as a business partnership than anything else. Don is still an unrepentant cheater, now stuck with Betty’s dad. The show is about keeping appearances, it has been said many times by many people. But it’s funny to see people gushing about these characters like they were on “Grey’s Anatomy”. Maybe because the media loves the glamour and extra-clean atmosphere of the 60s of “Mad Men”. But to me, this clean atmosphere hides a deep discomfort, almost in the manner of “American Psycho” if it makes sense.

The show has often been accused to be dull, since it doesn’t even stay on the topic of the “Client of The Week”. But to me, this dullness is on purpose: there are not that much displays of love or affection in the show, if you look closely, not really physical violence. The moral values are strongly implied in the show, so any outburst, like the fired advertising guy at the beginning of the season, or reprehensible behaviour, like Roger Sterling in blackface, is noticed, but barely mentioned. The show is more about fleeting frustration, lost “accounts” and lack of good ideas for their campaign. To me, every week, “Mad Men” gets more oppressing in its depiction of characters rotting from the inside, characteristically unhappy. That a show still manages to attract viewers despite the depressing content is, to me, an amazing feat.

Point and slash

2009-09-17T23:53:00.000+02:00

Tron: Legacy has now a release date: Dec. 17, 2010.
It will, like Spidey 4, be digitally remastered for the IMAX.

As you probably have heard by now, District 9's Sharlto Copley and Jessica Biel are joining Joe Carnahan's A-Team cast.
Bradley Cooper, Liam Neeson and Qinton "Rampage" Jackson have already been cast, respectively playing Lt. Templeton "Faceman" Peckn John "Hannibal" Smith and Sgt. "B.A." Baracus.
Biel is set to play Faceman's ex and Copley be Capt. "Howling Mad" Murdock.

Ron Howard is coming back at FOX with another comedy, this time multicamera, and about an IRS district office. The Simpsons/The Office's Brent Forrester will write the pilot.

Oh and Arianna Huggington will have her own multicamera sitcom for ABC, brought to you by How I Met Your Mother's exec Greg Malins. The show will be about "the friendship of three freshman members of Congress -- two men and a woman -- who live together in D.C."

And since we're (almost) on the subject:

The Men Who Stare at the Poster

2009-09-16T23:27:00.000+02:00

Genius.

The Jay Leno Show: Is that it?

2009-09-15T23:33:00.001+02:00

With almost 18 million viewers last night, NBC's The Jay Leno Show premiered as expected with high numbers. It will be interesting to see how well it fairs in front of say, CSI (Miami and New York), in a couple of weeks/months.

I dared to watch yesterday's premiere just to see what all the fuss was about.
For months, there was all this talk about how this would revolutionize the talk show formula, etc.
But after having seen the premiere, I’ve got to wonder:
Is that it?

Seriously, think about it, how is it any different from other talk-shows?
It just looked to me like Oprah meets the Tonight Show.
Nothing was really different, except all the 10s painted everywhere in the gigantic studio to show he was now on at, you know it, 10PM.

Sure, there’s no desk (to a point), but come on, all the guests are still comfortably sitting in their chair. They’re not doing anything unusual; they’re just talking and cracking jokes (for the most part).

Regarding the monologue, the Dick Cheney joke he made was eerily similar to one Conan O’Brien made last week.
The pre-taped bits weren’t all that funny either, and unfortunately so was (or rather wasn’t) Dan Finnerty. That was disappointing.

As for Jerry Seinfeld, what’s up with his earpiece?

Was someone feeding him jokes...or was it used for the fake Oprah "interview"?

And by fake, I mean that there was no video feed on stage. If you look carefully, she was CGId in. The biggest clue is towards the end of the interview, as the camera moves, so does the fake screen (same movements).
You can check the video again, it's pretty evident (especially with that fake chrome mount).
So anyways, she wasn’t really on the Leno show after all. At least not when it was shot.

Now, besides her faux-guesting, you might be wondering why the hell I’m comparing the Leno show with the Oprah show.
First off, look how Leno was greeted when he came in. It looked like Jesus had returned to his people.

There was also the awaited Kanye West interview.
I’m not gonna talk about what happened at the VMAs (seriously though, why the hell is this news?).
However, Kanye's (almost) one-on-one with Leno felt like an Oprah Winfrey moment.

I think it was pretty cold of Leno to ask, almost out of the blue, how West’s (now-deceased) mother would feel about the whole VMA incident.
“Do you think she’d be disappointed?”
That looked like a douchey question just asked to get an emotional response out of someone.

What was almost even weirder however is seeing, only moments later, Kanye West jumping back on stage to sing next to Jay-Z and Rihanna.

Overall, it was your typical Jay Leno talk-show.
There was no "revolution" here, just me being mostly bored.