Once again, with apologies to Bill Maher, here are another set of “New Rules” I would like to see imposed on television.
1. NEW RULE – Especially since the sound on commercials is always extra loud, the ringing of doorbells and the barking of dogs MUST be eliminated. Late at night my dog Sophie will finally be curled up asleep at my side, when suddenly a doorbell or barking dog blares out in a commercial, waking her up and sending her zooming around the house!
Related Stories
2. NEW RULE – Yes I enjoy looking at young attractive women, but when a cable news network (especially Fox News) presents a panel of “experts” commenting on an important political issue, such as the health care debate or the wars in Iran and Afghanistan, the entire panel MUST not resemble the finalists in a Miss Universe competition.
3. NEW RULE – On “Extreme Makeover: Home Addition,” the producers MUST explain how the pathetically poor families who are given an ostentatiously large and ornate house will be able to pay the utility and tax bills for their new “castles.” The concept of the show is great, but they definitely overdue these makeovers.
4. NEW RULE – Weathermen MUST tone down their exaggerated claims of severe storm warnings in order to entice viewers to “stay tuned.” In the fall every developing storm in the Caribbean sounds like the second coming of Katrina, and in the winter every prediction of snow sounds like the second coming of the Blizzard of '78!
5. NEW RULE – Exciting dramas with ongoing story arcs MUST stop giving away important plot developments when previewing the following week's episode. My favorite show “Dexter” is especially guilty of committing this heinous sin.
6. NEW RULE - Speaking of previews, when a morning show such as “Today” says “coming up” before cutting to commercials, the previewed segment MUST be aired immediately follow the commercials, not 45 minutes later.
7. NEW RULE – Any commercial that shows a talking baby MUST be eliminated. They are not cute at all, and in fact they are eerily weird and exceedingly annoying.
8. NEW RULE – NBC MUST return Jay Leno to a later time shot or get rid of him altogether. His nightly prime time show is unwatchable. Such classic NBC shows as “Hill Street Blues,” “LA Law,” and “ER,” used to occupy that 10:00 time slot.
9. NEW RULE – Holiday commercials for a specific store that say “today only, lowest prices of the season” MUST not be allowed to be re-aired a few days later.
10. NEW RULE - The college football bowl season MUST end on New Years' Day, except perhaps for one championship game. This year there are only five games scheduled to be televised on January 1 and nine games scheduled for the week after! Along the same lines, the Fox network MUST not be allowed to stretch out the baseball playoffs so that World Series games are played in November.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Help! The 'Suits' are Ruining My Favorite Shows!
I am growing increasingly miffed by the broadcast network's (probably more specifically ABC's) handling of the whole “winter break” scenario when it comes to scripted series.
It is obvious that decisions are being made by the “suits” rather than the creative types, but isn't that always the case with the networks, and probably one of the primary reasons why their ratings have tumbled over the years.
(As an aside, nobody used the word “suits” better and with more venom than director Billy Walsh on “Entourage,” when filming the bomb “Medellin” that almost ruined Vince's career. In this one case the “suits” were probably right.)
I can understand taking a few weeks off from series so the networks can air “Frosty the Snowman” and “Carrie Underwood: An All Star Holiday Special.” And I do look forward to seeing “National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation” and Bing Crosby in both “Holliday Inn” and “White Christmas” for the umpteenth time every December.
But why can't my favorite series return in January? Supposedly the “suits” are afraid of competing with NBC's coverage of the Winter Olympics, but do you know anyone who actually religiously watches the Winter Games on a nightly basis, other than relatives of competitors? OK, the Opening Ceremonies are interesting for about 45 minutes, but by the time the Finnish national team comes marching in, I am ready to change the channel out of boredom.
Yes, the figure skating usually draws decent ratings, but does it make sense for the “suits” at Fox and ABC to alter their programming to avoid competing with the luge or biathlon events? Moreover, the Olympics are only on for two weeks in February. Yet some shows are now on “winter break” until March! In fact “V” won't return until March 30!
I do agree that shows with serialized story lines like “Lost,” “24,” and “Prison Break” are best seen when aired in consecutive episodes without repeats or preemptions. But last week's announcement that “FlashForward” will now not return until March 4 makes absolutely no sense to at all. For me, one of the really exciting attributes of this show was its ties to the real world calendar.
One of the show's major plot lines focused on learning that FBI agent Demitri Noh is supposed to be murdered on March 10, and (as we discovered last week) the murderer is supposedly his partner Mark Benford (or at least the murder weapon is Benford's gun). It was going to be fascinating to see how developments over the coming weeks and months would (might?) lead to Demitri's demise.
But now the show is returning just a week before the predicted murder, so what's the point? And for everyone else, the “flash forward” vision that they saw was to occur (writer's note: it certainly is difficult to figure which tenses to use when writing about this show) on April 29, 2010. So when the show returns on March 4, are we supposed to wonder what has transpired over the past three months? Or have the “suits” dictated that they will just be picking up the action right after the last episode, aired on December 3? The whole tie-in with real time dates was much of the fascination of the show. Now that whole concept has been seriously compromised, if not ruined.
I recently read an interview with “FlashForward's” creator, David Goyer, who said that the show was originally scheduled to return in January, but the decision to push it back until March (by the “suits,” of course) was in fact because the network did not want to compete with the Winter Olympics.
Goyer further said that certain episodes have been “swapped out” and others are being rewritten. All I can say is that I am glad I am not a writer on the show. As far as I am concerned, the ABC “suits” are crippling the show and probably killing it, as NBC did a few years ago with the promising series “Jericho,” which also went on a three-month hiatus.
Of course I will certainly follow “Lost” to the end, but I think I will look long and hard at any broadcast network serialized show in the future before getting too caught up in the plot. I still fill burned by the cancellation of the ABC series “The Nines” two years ago, which just halted production in the middle of the season, without any plot resolution.
The same holds true for another ABC series “Invasion,” which was cancelled after one season just when things were getting interesting. It is one thing when a sitcom or a drama without a serialized story arc is cancelled, but it is quite another when viewers invest time and energy into following a serialized show that just ends abruptly.
So I think I will just stick to cable networks such as HBO and Showtime, which run such great series as “True Blood” and “Dexter” in consecutive weeks and aren't afraid to compete with “A Muppet's Christmas.”
It is obvious that decisions are being made by the “suits” rather than the creative types, but isn't that always the case with the networks, and probably one of the primary reasons why their ratings have tumbled over the years.
(As an aside, nobody used the word “suits” better and with more venom than director Billy Walsh on “Entourage,” when filming the bomb “Medellin” that almost ruined Vince's career. In this one case the “suits” were probably right.)
I can understand taking a few weeks off from series so the networks can air “Frosty the Snowman” and “Carrie Underwood: An All Star Holiday Special.” And I do look forward to seeing “National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation” and Bing Crosby in both “Holliday Inn” and “White Christmas” for the umpteenth time every December.
But why can't my favorite series return in January? Supposedly the “suits” are afraid of competing with NBC's coverage of the Winter Olympics, but do you know anyone who actually religiously watches the Winter Games on a nightly basis, other than relatives of competitors? OK, the Opening Ceremonies are interesting for about 45 minutes, but by the time the Finnish national team comes marching in, I am ready to change the channel out of boredom.
Yes, the figure skating usually draws decent ratings, but does it make sense for the “suits” at Fox and ABC to alter their programming to avoid competing with the luge or biathlon events? Moreover, the Olympics are only on for two weeks in February. Yet some shows are now on “winter break” until March! In fact “V” won't return until March 30!
I do agree that shows with serialized story lines like “Lost,” “24,” and “Prison Break” are best seen when aired in consecutive episodes without repeats or preemptions. But last week's announcement that “FlashForward” will now not return until March 4 makes absolutely no sense to at all. For me, one of the really exciting attributes of this show was its ties to the real world calendar.
One of the show's major plot lines focused on learning that FBI agent Demitri Noh is supposed to be murdered on March 10, and (as we discovered last week) the murderer is supposedly his partner Mark Benford (or at least the murder weapon is Benford's gun). It was going to be fascinating to see how developments over the coming weeks and months would (might?) lead to Demitri's demise.
But now the show is returning just a week before the predicted murder, so what's the point? And for everyone else, the “flash forward” vision that they saw was to occur (writer's note: it certainly is difficult to figure which tenses to use when writing about this show) on April 29, 2010. So when the show returns on March 4, are we supposed to wonder what has transpired over the past three months? Or have the “suits” dictated that they will just be picking up the action right after the last episode, aired on December 3? The whole tie-in with real time dates was much of the fascination of the show. Now that whole concept has been seriously compromised, if not ruined.
I recently read an interview with “FlashForward's” creator, David Goyer, who said that the show was originally scheduled to return in January, but the decision to push it back until March (by the “suits,” of course) was in fact because the network did not want to compete with the Winter Olympics.
Goyer further said that certain episodes have been “swapped out” and others are being rewritten. All I can say is that I am glad I am not a writer on the show. As far as I am concerned, the ABC “suits” are crippling the show and probably killing it, as NBC did a few years ago with the promising series “Jericho,” which also went on a three-month hiatus.
Of course I will certainly follow “Lost” to the end, but I think I will look long and hard at any broadcast network serialized show in the future before getting too caught up in the plot. I still fill burned by the cancellation of the ABC series “The Nines” two years ago, which just halted production in the middle of the season, without any plot resolution.
The same holds true for another ABC series “Invasion,” which was cancelled after one season just when things were getting interesting. It is one thing when a sitcom or a drama without a serialized story arc is cancelled, but it is quite another when viewers invest time and energy into following a serialized show that just ends abruptly.
So I think I will just stick to cable networks such as HBO and Showtime, which run such great series as “True Blood” and “Dexter” in consecutive weeks and aren't afraid to compete with “A Muppet's Christmas.”
Friday, December 4, 2009
Are Mockumentaries Saving the Sitcom?
I am not 100 percent sure if it is because I like sitcoms that are shot in the “Office-style” mockumentary fashion, but I have grown exceedingly fond of two shows in recent weeks.
One of course is “Modern Family,” which I thought was just OK when I saw the pilot. But the various characters have been fleshed out in recent episodes. For many people, including myself, it is hard to get too “involved” in any sitcom’s first couple of episodes. I even remember not being that crazy about “Seinfeld” at the beginning.
All too often sitcom characters are just trite stereotypes, who never develop any unique qualities or depth. But as I have watched “Modern Family” the past few weeks, several of the family members have evolved into truly interesting personas.
For me the first was the father, Phil Dunphy, who tries so hard to be a cool dad to his three children. His efforts are incredibly lame, yet they are infused with a touch of reality that any father of teenagers can easily relate to today. I look forward in each episode to his little “chats” with his kids, as well as his explanations to the cameras.
Then there is the gay couple, Mitchell and Cameron, who at first seemed to be the epitome of every gay character stereotype. But again in recent episodes we have learned more about them, with Cameron displaying a street-wise toughness (while dressed as Fizbo the clown) and then demonstrating an intricate knowledge of football strategy after revealing the fact that he was a starting tackle for his University of Illinois football team.
I could go on down the line, as I find myself growing increasingly fond of each and every member of the three interlocked families. And at the end of each episode I find myself strangely satisfied at how the craziness displayed in that show plays out, such as everyone jumping in the pool with their clothes on this week.
Then there is another mockumentary style show, “Parks and Recreation,” now in its second season. Produced by the same company that created “The Office,” and starring SNL alum Amy Poehler, the show debuted last year and was somewhat amusing. But this year I think the show has matured, as once again the evolving characters give the series both the warmth and humor that a sitcom requires to develop an audience.
Last season Amy’s character, Leslie Knope, was almost cartoonish in her portrayal of a buffoonish mid-level bureaucrat in a small Indiana town’s Parks Department. But this season she has borrowed some of the feminist sass that she demonstrated in many SNL skits over the years.
In this week’s episode she tells a stripper whom she dubs “Seabiscuit” (don’t ask why she was in a strip club in the first place) that the lady should seriously “reconsider her profession.” And last week, while on a testosterone-driven hunting trip, her over the top reactions to a sexist park ranger produced a sequence worthy of her absolute best SNL impressions.
As with “Modern Family,” several of the supporting characters have also developed interesting and unique personalities, such as the bored intern, April, or the blustery, somewhat macho boss, Ron Swanson, who plays off Leslie’s feminism perfectly.
The fact that my three current favorite sitcoms aired on broadcast networks all employ the same mockumentary-style technique is probably not a coincidence. The asides that all the characters make to the cameras give each of them the opportunity to flesh out their personalities and to allow the audience the chance to really get to know and appreciate them.
(Does anyone do such asides better than Dwight Schrute on “The Office?”)
Thinking back, I wonder how some of my favorite past sitcoms might have been even funnier had they employed the same mockumentary technique. Can you imagine Edith Bunker defending to a camera some of Archie’s racist rants? Or Lou Grant explaining his reasons for keeping Ted Baxter on as his news anchor?
I realize that the mockumentary cameras really make little sense, especially in a sitcom set at home, such as in “Modern Family.” But it sure beats the heck out the senseless laugh tracks that many shows still employ even today.
One of course is “Modern Family,” which I thought was just OK when I saw the pilot. But the various characters have been fleshed out in recent episodes. For many people, including myself, it is hard to get too “involved” in any sitcom’s first couple of episodes. I even remember not being that crazy about “Seinfeld” at the beginning.
All too often sitcom characters are just trite stereotypes, who never develop any unique qualities or depth. But as I have watched “Modern Family” the past few weeks, several of the family members have evolved into truly interesting personas.
For me the first was the father, Phil Dunphy, who tries so hard to be a cool dad to his three children. His efforts are incredibly lame, yet they are infused with a touch of reality that any father of teenagers can easily relate to today. I look forward in each episode to his little “chats” with his kids, as well as his explanations to the cameras.
Then there is the gay couple, Mitchell and Cameron, who at first seemed to be the epitome of every gay character stereotype. But again in recent episodes we have learned more about them, with Cameron displaying a street-wise toughness (while dressed as Fizbo the clown) and then demonstrating an intricate knowledge of football strategy after revealing the fact that he was a starting tackle for his University of Illinois football team.
I could go on down the line, as I find myself growing increasingly fond of each and every member of the three interlocked families. And at the end of each episode I find myself strangely satisfied at how the craziness displayed in that show plays out, such as everyone jumping in the pool with their clothes on this week.
Then there is another mockumentary style show, “Parks and Recreation,” now in its second season. Produced by the same company that created “The Office,” and starring SNL alum Amy Poehler, the show debuted last year and was somewhat amusing. But this year I think the show has matured, as once again the evolving characters give the series both the warmth and humor that a sitcom requires to develop an audience.
Last season Amy’s character, Leslie Knope, was almost cartoonish in her portrayal of a buffoonish mid-level bureaucrat in a small Indiana town’s Parks Department. But this season she has borrowed some of the feminist sass that she demonstrated in many SNL skits over the years.
In this week’s episode she tells a stripper whom she dubs “Seabiscuit” (don’t ask why she was in a strip club in the first place) that the lady should seriously “reconsider her profession.” And last week, while on a testosterone-driven hunting trip, her over the top reactions to a sexist park ranger produced a sequence worthy of her absolute best SNL impressions.
As with “Modern Family,” several of the supporting characters have also developed interesting and unique personalities, such as the bored intern, April, or the blustery, somewhat macho boss, Ron Swanson, who plays off Leslie’s feminism perfectly.
The fact that my three current favorite sitcoms aired on broadcast networks all employ the same mockumentary-style technique is probably not a coincidence. The asides that all the characters make to the cameras give each of them the opportunity to flesh out their personalities and to allow the audience the chance to really get to know and appreciate them.
(Does anyone do such asides better than Dwight Schrute on “The Office?”)
Thinking back, I wonder how some of my favorite past sitcoms might have been even funnier had they employed the same mockumentary technique. Can you imagine Edith Bunker defending to a camera some of Archie’s racist rants? Or Lou Grant explaining his reasons for keeping Ted Baxter on as his news anchor?
I realize that the mockumentary cameras really make little sense, especially in a sitcom set at home, such as in “Modern Family.” But it sure beats the heck out the senseless laugh tracks that many shows still employ even today.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Join the club, Tiger
Apparently all signs point to the fact that another extremely wealthy, well-traveled, powerful married male who had worked hard to portray an image of himself as a family man has been having an affair with a sexy young cocktail waitress.
So what else is new?
In a statement published on his web site Wednesday morning, Tiger Woods said
“I have let my family down and I regret those transgressions with all of my heart. I have not been true to my values and the behavior my family deserves. I am not without faults and I am far short of perfect. I am dealing with my behavior and personal failings behind closed doors with my family.”
But what does Tiger really regret? The indiscretions, or getting caught?
In his statement he then goes on to change the subject, defending his wife and any rumors that domestic violence played any role in his car accident. And then, following in the footsteps of other exposed cheaters in 2009 such as Jon Gosselin and South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, he blames the media for their intrusion into his privacy:
“But no matter how intense curiosity about public figures can be, there is an important and deep principle at stake which is the right to some simple, human measure of privacy. I realize there are some who don't share my view on that. But for me, the virtue of privacy is one that must be protected in matters that are intimate and within one's own family. Personal sins should not require press releases and problems within a family shouldn't have to mean public confessions.”
Sorry Tiger, but if you put yourself out there not so much as a professional golfer, but as a man with scores of endorsement deals and a squeaky clean image, you can’t hide behind such statements.
This is especially true in 2009, when almost everyone has a camera phone, and emails, texts, and voice messages can easily be traced and made public. Anyone can go to the Us Weekly web site (usmagazine.com) and listen to a voice mail from Tiger pleading with his mistress, LA cocktail waitress Jaimee Grubbs, “can you please take your name off your phone, my wife may be calling you.” He then urges her to do it “quickly.”
It is this attempt at a cover up that will probably sully his reputation more than the affair itself. In the court of public opinion, does David Letterman score higher for coming out on his own show and publicly admitting to his various dalliances?
Of course far more important than what the public thinks is what the cheated spouses feel about their husbands having illicit affairs. Wives of public figures such as politicians, entertainers, or athletes tend to forgive (but not necessarily forget) such actions.
From Hillary Clinton to Elizabeth Edwards and even as far back as Eleanor Roosevelt, Mamie Eisenhower, or Jackie Kennedy, these women knew their husbands were “fooling around” but stayed with them.
One has to wonder if their expectations of their husband’s fidelity were from the beginning much lower than what most wives expect when they enter a marriage. Is there some tacit understanding consciously or even subconsciously that when you marry a wealthy, powerful man, you get all of the positive perks, such as estates, servants, expensive cars and jewelry, etc. But you may also have to put up with a few, shall we say, indiscretions.
I have watched psychologists on talk shows the past couple of years state that the kind of narcissistic men who achieve power and wealth are also the type of men who feel they are invulnerable to getting caught, that they can get away with almost anything.
However, I think there is another reason that so many rich, famous men cheat. (And I know I may be getting in trouble with this statement.) It is because they can.
That is, I really don’t think that any of my married male friends and relatives are cheating on their wives. BUT I have to wonder if any of them (and I will include myself in this category) had considerable wealth, owned several homes around the world and traveled without our wives (as most politicians, athletes, and entertainers do at one time or another), and had gorgeous women literally throwing themselves at us, what would we do?
I would like to think that I and my friends would remain totally faithful to our wives. But you never know.
So what else is new?
In a statement published on his web site Wednesday morning, Tiger Woods said
“I have let my family down and I regret those transgressions with all of my heart. I have not been true to my values and the behavior my family deserves. I am not without faults and I am far short of perfect. I am dealing with my behavior and personal failings behind closed doors with my family.”
But what does Tiger really regret? The indiscretions, or getting caught?
In his statement he then goes on to change the subject, defending his wife and any rumors that domestic violence played any role in his car accident. And then, following in the footsteps of other exposed cheaters in 2009 such as Jon Gosselin and South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, he blames the media for their intrusion into his privacy:
“But no matter how intense curiosity about public figures can be, there is an important and deep principle at stake which is the right to some simple, human measure of privacy. I realize there are some who don't share my view on that. But for me, the virtue of privacy is one that must be protected in matters that are intimate and within one's own family. Personal sins should not require press releases and problems within a family shouldn't have to mean public confessions.”
Sorry Tiger, but if you put yourself out there not so much as a professional golfer, but as a man with scores of endorsement deals and a squeaky clean image, you can’t hide behind such statements.
This is especially true in 2009, when almost everyone has a camera phone, and emails, texts, and voice messages can easily be traced and made public. Anyone can go to the Us Weekly web site (usmagazine.com) and listen to a voice mail from Tiger pleading with his mistress, LA cocktail waitress Jaimee Grubbs, “can you please take your name off your phone, my wife may be calling you.” He then urges her to do it “quickly.”
It is this attempt at a cover up that will probably sully his reputation more than the affair itself. In the court of public opinion, does David Letterman score higher for coming out on his own show and publicly admitting to his various dalliances?
Of course far more important than what the public thinks is what the cheated spouses feel about their husbands having illicit affairs. Wives of public figures such as politicians, entertainers, or athletes tend to forgive (but not necessarily forget) such actions.
From Hillary Clinton to Elizabeth Edwards and even as far back as Eleanor Roosevelt, Mamie Eisenhower, or Jackie Kennedy, these women knew their husbands were “fooling around” but stayed with them.
One has to wonder if their expectations of their husband’s fidelity were from the beginning much lower than what most wives expect when they enter a marriage. Is there some tacit understanding consciously or even subconsciously that when you marry a wealthy, powerful man, you get all of the positive perks, such as estates, servants, expensive cars and jewelry, etc. But you may also have to put up with a few, shall we say, indiscretions.
I have watched psychologists on talk shows the past couple of years state that the kind of narcissistic men who achieve power and wealth are also the type of men who feel they are invulnerable to getting caught, that they can get away with almost anything.
However, I think there is another reason that so many rich, famous men cheat. (And I know I may be getting in trouble with this statement.) It is because they can.
That is, I really don’t think that any of my married male friends and relatives are cheating on their wives. BUT I have to wonder if any of them (and I will include myself in this category) had considerable wealth, owned several homes around the world and traveled without our wives (as most politicians, athletes, and entertainers do at one time or another), and had gorgeous women literally throwing themselves at us, what would we do?
I would like to think that I and my friends would remain totally faithful to our wives. But you never know.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
'Jon & Kate' the Finale...Finally!
I mumbled to my wife, “Well, tonight's “Jon& Kate Plus Eight” is absolutely, positively, the final episode.”
Her reply? “Good.” Then we watched the show, and at the end I looked over and she was wiping tears away, just as Kate was doing the same during her final “couch interview.” elated Stories
Kate had just repeated for about the umpteenth time during the episode phrases like “it didn't have to end,” and “I feel like its being taken away from me and the kids,” and “it's too soon for the show to end.”
Then they showed a montage of clips ranging from Kate's grotesquely large stomach when she was pregnant with the sextuplets, to the babies in their cribs, to her and Jon playing with the kids during much happier times.
And I turned to my wife and remarked, “yeah, but the show really had to end after the fiasco of the past year.”
She then replied, “well, when you write about it, try not to be too sarcastic.”
Being an obedient husband, I will try to be nice, but it's difficult. Very difficult.
Again I have to mention, as I did last week, that Jon and TLC are involved in back and forth law suits, and it is obvious that the show's producers are doing everything possible to portray Kate as the innocent victim and Jon as the villain.
Last night the episode titled “It's a Crazy Life, but It's Our Life,” started off with a close up of the sign Jon posted on the gate of their estate saying that the TLC crew was now banned from shooting any more footage on their property; therefore pointing out that it's Jon's fault that the show is ending.
For the past month, “J&K” episodes have focused on poor Kate sitting on the interview couch, telling her side of the story, answering viewers' questions, and commenting on the viewers' choices of their favorite moments.
Last night Jon finally was given a chance to talk, and his interview was edited down to a minute or two, in which he “confessed” his sins. While Kate was perfectly coiffed and dressed, Jon looked somewhat disheveled, and while listening to his acceptance of blame, I was reminded of videotapes of American prisoners in Iraq being forced to confess while hooded figures loomed in the background threatening to behead them.
Jon stated while wringing his hands “I think I became more educated about myself and what I've learned the past couple months about myself. I always looked for blame and I never really took blame and now I'm taking blame. I can own up to it, I gotta stop being a kid; I gotta grow up and be a man.”
Jon then related that he had gotten married at 22 and when he was “free” last year he reverted back to being 23 and didn't think about the consequences of his actions. (It was hard to tell if Jon was reading off a teleprompter.)
Following this “confession,” Kate calmly explained “I've been thrown in the same boat with Jon, but I'm in a completely different boat, going in a completely different direction.” Good for you Kate.
So now we get it…everything that happened in the past year was due to Jon's immaturity.
To further belabor the point, Kate went on to say she somewhat distrusted Jon's behavior with the kids. They then cut to a scene in which nine year old Maddy whines “I like stuff we do with Mommy.” Jon then loses it, yells at Maddy and Cara, and punishes them by forbidding them from accompanying the family to the firehouse where they will be setting up a lemonade stand.
Of course we all know that Kate never yells at the kids (oops sorry, I am being sarcastic again).
But the topper of it all was that after Jon and the sextuplets sold lemonade to raise money for local firefighters, Kate questioned his motives and had the nerve to actually ask “Is it a publicity stunt?” Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!
The final Gosselin family adventure involved Kate taking just the sextuplets to a neighbor's farm, where everyone had a great time milking cows and playing with kittens. Of course Kate had to point out that that the reason Maddy and Cara did not accompany them was because they were in school, and she would definitely be taking the twins on a separate trip to the neighbor's farm.
Anyway, that was the series finale, and I predict that the next time we see Kate Gosselin she will be starring in her own talk show, probably on TLC. Hey didn't Oprah announce that she will be ending her show in 2011?
And poor Jon will probably wind up on a future episode of “Celebrity Rehab.”
Her reply? “Good.” Then we watched the show, and at the end I looked over and she was wiping tears away, just as Kate was doing the same during her final “couch interview.” elated Stories
Kate had just repeated for about the umpteenth time during the episode phrases like “it didn't have to end,” and “I feel like its being taken away from me and the kids,” and “it's too soon for the show to end.”
Then they showed a montage of clips ranging from Kate's grotesquely large stomach when she was pregnant with the sextuplets, to the babies in their cribs, to her and Jon playing with the kids during much happier times.
And I turned to my wife and remarked, “yeah, but the show really had to end after the fiasco of the past year.”
She then replied, “well, when you write about it, try not to be too sarcastic.”
Being an obedient husband, I will try to be nice, but it's difficult. Very difficult.
Again I have to mention, as I did last week, that Jon and TLC are involved in back and forth law suits, and it is obvious that the show's producers are doing everything possible to portray Kate as the innocent victim and Jon as the villain.
Last night the episode titled “It's a Crazy Life, but It's Our Life,” started off with a close up of the sign Jon posted on the gate of their estate saying that the TLC crew was now banned from shooting any more footage on their property; therefore pointing out that it's Jon's fault that the show is ending.
For the past month, “J&K” episodes have focused on poor Kate sitting on the interview couch, telling her side of the story, answering viewers' questions, and commenting on the viewers' choices of their favorite moments.
Last night Jon finally was given a chance to talk, and his interview was edited down to a minute or two, in which he “confessed” his sins. While Kate was perfectly coiffed and dressed, Jon looked somewhat disheveled, and while listening to his acceptance of blame, I was reminded of videotapes of American prisoners in Iraq being forced to confess while hooded figures loomed in the background threatening to behead them.
Jon stated while wringing his hands “I think I became more educated about myself and what I've learned the past couple months about myself. I always looked for blame and I never really took blame and now I'm taking blame. I can own up to it, I gotta stop being a kid; I gotta grow up and be a man.”
Jon then related that he had gotten married at 22 and when he was “free” last year he reverted back to being 23 and didn't think about the consequences of his actions. (It was hard to tell if Jon was reading off a teleprompter.)
Following this “confession,” Kate calmly explained “I've been thrown in the same boat with Jon, but I'm in a completely different boat, going in a completely different direction.” Good for you Kate.
So now we get it…everything that happened in the past year was due to Jon's immaturity.
To further belabor the point, Kate went on to say she somewhat distrusted Jon's behavior with the kids. They then cut to a scene in which nine year old Maddy whines “I like stuff we do with Mommy.” Jon then loses it, yells at Maddy and Cara, and punishes them by forbidding them from accompanying the family to the firehouse where they will be setting up a lemonade stand.
Of course we all know that Kate never yells at the kids (oops sorry, I am being sarcastic again).
But the topper of it all was that after Jon and the sextuplets sold lemonade to raise money for local firefighters, Kate questioned his motives and had the nerve to actually ask “Is it a publicity stunt?” Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!
The final Gosselin family adventure involved Kate taking just the sextuplets to a neighbor's farm, where everyone had a great time milking cows and playing with kittens. Of course Kate had to point out that that the reason Maddy and Cara did not accompany them was because they were in school, and she would definitely be taking the twins on a separate trip to the neighbor's farm.
Anyway, that was the series finale, and I predict that the next time we see Kate Gosselin she will be starring in her own talk show, probably on TLC. Hey didn't Oprah announce that she will be ending her show in 2011?
And poor Jon will probably wind up on a future episode of “Celebrity Rehab.”
Monday, November 23, 2009
'Curb' Finale was 'Prettay, Prettay Good,' but...
I don't know exactly what I was expecting, but I felt just a little disappointed by last night's season 7 finale of “Curb Your Enthusiasm,” titled “Seinfeld.” Yes, it was so ballyhooed, for that reason alone it had to be just a bit of a letdown.
After all, few things in life match or exceed something that one looks forward to with as much anticipation as I did last night's final Seinfeld reunion show. (Like Christmas when you are six years old.) Although since I felt last week's show was close to perfect (I would give it a nine), I just hoped that last night's finale would achieve total perfection. (But ten's are very rare, except on “Dancing with the Stars.”)
But it didn't quite make it. Then again, it far exceeded the much hyped “Seinfeld” finale of 11 years ago, which most people were disappointed in, and which Larry himself mocked in last night's show.
LD seems to write best when he just deals with the mundane annoyances of life. When he tries to knock one out of the park he sometimes swings too hard and pops up. However, saying he “popped up” last night would not be fair. Let's say he lined a double off the wall, while I was hoping for a home run.
So I will try and be positive. After all, the show within a show “Seinfeld reunion” was actually pretty funny, and had the basics of what would be a very good episode. In fact I found myself yearning for more of the “Seinfeld” stuff. George losing the millions that he made from the “iToilet” (I assume that is how it would have been spelled) to Bernie Madoff was a great plot twist.
And I think everyone watching would want to know more details about Elaine's child who was born thanks to a “sperm donation” by Uncle Jerry. Exactly how did that “donation” take place?
As for the “Curb” portion of the show, that is where I felt a little let down. The “favor” exchange with Mocha Joe was a little far-fetched, as was Jason Alexander walking off the show because he didn't like the alternate ending that Larry wrote.
“Having said that,” as usual I loved the scenes with Jeff's wife Susie, screaming at Larry about the coffee ring stain on her antique table. Nobody recreates the “wife from Hell” (and I will credit Richard Lewis for inventing that expression) better.
But let's examine the whole Larry being jealous of Jason's interactions with Cheryl. Certainly a psychiatrist would have a field day analyzing Larry's over the top reactions. After all, Jason was merely playing the part of George, who Larry had based upon himself. Watching Larry attempting to replace Jason and imitate George, who is Larry's alter ego, was very intriguing. That is one scene I plan on watching over several times.
Remember, the major plot arc of the season was not so much the so-called “Seinfeld reunion,” but rather Larry planning the reunion in one of his twisted machinations to win Cheryl back. And the final scene, where he does win her back, sort of, but then begins to demonstrate the same neurotic behavior that drove her away in the first place, was fascinating and funny.
Finally, stepping back from this one episode and examining the show from Larry David's real life perspective, outside of both “Seinfeld” and “Curb Your Enthusiasm,” offers an interesting exercise in trying to separate art from reality.
After all in real life, Larry David and his wife Laurie (who is an environmental activist and was actually the producer of Al Gore's Oscar-winning documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth”), really did split up a few years ago. And I understand that Larry really did plan for season 6, which ended with Larry and the Black (that's their name) family living “happily ever after” to be the series finale of “Curb.”
Season 6 actually aired two years ago and supposedly it took HBO executives almost a year to finally talk Larry David into signing on for two more seasons of “Curb.” So it sort of made sense that Larry would have to get Cheryl back in season 7, and that is the real reason that he concocted this “meshugas” scheme to win her back.
It will be very interesting to see what Larry comes up with as a story arc for season 8. Having done the “Seinfeld reunion” thing, I can't imagine what it will entail.
But I can hardly wait. So let me be the first to begin the over the top hype for next season, so I can probably be a bit disappointed yet again. After all that is what happens when you are a Larry David addict.
After all, few things in life match or exceed something that one looks forward to with as much anticipation as I did last night's final Seinfeld reunion show. (Like Christmas when you are six years old.) Although since I felt last week's show was close to perfect (I would give it a nine), I just hoped that last night's finale would achieve total perfection. (But ten's are very rare, except on “Dancing with the Stars.”)
But it didn't quite make it. Then again, it far exceeded the much hyped “Seinfeld” finale of 11 years ago, which most people were disappointed in, and which Larry himself mocked in last night's show.
LD seems to write best when he just deals with the mundane annoyances of life. When he tries to knock one out of the park he sometimes swings too hard and pops up. However, saying he “popped up” last night would not be fair. Let's say he lined a double off the wall, while I was hoping for a home run.
So I will try and be positive. After all, the show within a show “Seinfeld reunion” was actually pretty funny, and had the basics of what would be a very good episode. In fact I found myself yearning for more of the “Seinfeld” stuff. George losing the millions that he made from the “iToilet” (I assume that is how it would have been spelled) to Bernie Madoff was a great plot twist.
And I think everyone watching would want to know more details about Elaine's child who was born thanks to a “sperm donation” by Uncle Jerry. Exactly how did that “donation” take place?
As for the “Curb” portion of the show, that is where I felt a little let down. The “favor” exchange with Mocha Joe was a little far-fetched, as was Jason Alexander walking off the show because he didn't like the alternate ending that Larry wrote.
“Having said that,” as usual I loved the scenes with Jeff's wife Susie, screaming at Larry about the coffee ring stain on her antique table. Nobody recreates the “wife from Hell” (and I will credit Richard Lewis for inventing that expression) better.
But let's examine the whole Larry being jealous of Jason's interactions with Cheryl. Certainly a psychiatrist would have a field day analyzing Larry's over the top reactions. After all, Jason was merely playing the part of George, who Larry had based upon himself. Watching Larry attempting to replace Jason and imitate George, who is Larry's alter ego, was very intriguing. That is one scene I plan on watching over several times.
Remember, the major plot arc of the season was not so much the so-called “Seinfeld reunion,” but rather Larry planning the reunion in one of his twisted machinations to win Cheryl back. And the final scene, where he does win her back, sort of, but then begins to demonstrate the same neurotic behavior that drove her away in the first place, was fascinating and funny.
Finally, stepping back from this one episode and examining the show from Larry David's real life perspective, outside of both “Seinfeld” and “Curb Your Enthusiasm,” offers an interesting exercise in trying to separate art from reality.
After all in real life, Larry David and his wife Laurie (who is an environmental activist and was actually the producer of Al Gore's Oscar-winning documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth”), really did split up a few years ago. And I understand that Larry really did plan for season 6, which ended with Larry and the Black (that's their name) family living “happily ever after” to be the series finale of “Curb.”
Season 6 actually aired two years ago and supposedly it took HBO executives almost a year to finally talk Larry David into signing on for two more seasons of “Curb.” So it sort of made sense that Larry would have to get Cheryl back in season 7, and that is the real reason that he concocted this “meshugas” scheme to win her back.
It will be very interesting to see what Larry comes up with as a story arc for season 8. Having done the “Seinfeld reunion” thing, I can't imagine what it will entail.
But I can hardly wait. So let me be the first to begin the over the top hype for next season, so I can probably be a bit disappointed yet again. After all that is what happens when you are a Larry David addict.
Friday, November 20, 2009
'Lost' to Premiere on Groundhog Day!
Now we know when the sixth and final season of “Lost” will begin. According to the ABC press release, the show will debut on Tuesday, February 2. The evening will kick off at 8 pm with a one-hour recap, followed by a two-hour premiere episode.
I am one of those obsessed “Lost” fans who analyze and dissect every fact connected with “Lost.” So what immediately jumped out at me is the realization that February 2 is Groundhog Day! Coincidence? I think not.
Actually the movie “Groundhog Day” starring Bill Murray and Andie MacDowell has always been one of my favorites. And what is the main theme of “Groundhog Day?” Simply that Murray's weatherman character Phil Connors MUST relive the day over and over until he “gets it right.” That is, he stops being a conceited a-hole and matures into a warm, caring, almost heroic person.
And his efforts to woo and win over his assistant Rita also evolve, as his initial obnoxious, caveman-like efforts are totally rebuffed, until he finally learns to listen to her, understand her, and mature into a responsive, sincere, self confident human being…without losing his sense of humor.
It is the perfect analogous movie for the final season of “Lost” to emulate. For example several of his repeated “Groundhog Days” end with Phil attempting to kill himself, but he always wakes up the following day. Sound familiar, doesn't it? Remember, “Lost's” season five ended with everyone on the island being blown up by a hydrogen bomb that they intentionally set off!
And let's talk about how he wakes up, precisely at 6 am with his alarm clock radio going off blaring Sonny and Cher's song “I Got You Babe.” I can think of several “Lost” episodes that began with someone waking up to music, including Dr. Chang at the beginning of last season's finale.
I will go out on a limb and predict that season six's opening scene will include a sleeping person being woken up by a song playing on the radio. If that song happens to be “I Got You Babe,” (or any Sonny and Cher song, since “Lost's” producers tend to be somewhat subtle) well, I think I should be moved into the “Lost” Super Fan Hall of Fame!
Also take a look at the way that Phil changed and evolved to finally win over Rita. Is this what Jack must now do to become the man that Kate always thought he could become and truly love?
(Aside from “Lost,” a lot of men who wonder why women continuously blow them off could learn a lesson or two by watching how Phil matures in the movie.)
I am sure there are other tie-ins between “Groundhog Day” and “Lost,” and I certainly plan on renting the movie and watching it before February 2, 2010.
Overall, both “Groundhog Day” and “Lost” contain the similar theme of some mysterious outside force causing the main characters to do things over until they “get it right.”
I have also tried to examine the significance of “Lost” moving from its usual Wednesday evening time slot to Tuesdays. There is some Internet speculation the move is simply because ABC has finally developed a strong Wednesday, 9:00 lineup, with “Modern Family” followed by “Cougar Town.”
But I keep coming back to the fact that since Groundhog Day falls on a Tuesday next year, the move was absolutely necessary.
What do you think?
I am one of those obsessed “Lost” fans who analyze and dissect every fact connected with “Lost.” So what immediately jumped out at me is the realization that February 2 is Groundhog Day! Coincidence? I think not.
Actually the movie “Groundhog Day” starring Bill Murray and Andie MacDowell has always been one of my favorites. And what is the main theme of “Groundhog Day?” Simply that Murray's weatherman character Phil Connors MUST relive the day over and over until he “gets it right.” That is, he stops being a conceited a-hole and matures into a warm, caring, almost heroic person.
And his efforts to woo and win over his assistant Rita also evolve, as his initial obnoxious, caveman-like efforts are totally rebuffed, until he finally learns to listen to her, understand her, and mature into a responsive, sincere, self confident human being…without losing his sense of humor.
It is the perfect analogous movie for the final season of “Lost” to emulate. For example several of his repeated “Groundhog Days” end with Phil attempting to kill himself, but he always wakes up the following day. Sound familiar, doesn't it? Remember, “Lost's” season five ended with everyone on the island being blown up by a hydrogen bomb that they intentionally set off!
And let's talk about how he wakes up, precisely at 6 am with his alarm clock radio going off blaring Sonny and Cher's song “I Got You Babe.” I can think of several “Lost” episodes that began with someone waking up to music, including Dr. Chang at the beginning of last season's finale.
I will go out on a limb and predict that season six's opening scene will include a sleeping person being woken up by a song playing on the radio. If that song happens to be “I Got You Babe,” (or any Sonny and Cher song, since “Lost's” producers tend to be somewhat subtle) well, I think I should be moved into the “Lost” Super Fan Hall of Fame!
Also take a look at the way that Phil changed and evolved to finally win over Rita. Is this what Jack must now do to become the man that Kate always thought he could become and truly love?
(Aside from “Lost,” a lot of men who wonder why women continuously blow them off could learn a lesson or two by watching how Phil matures in the movie.)
I am sure there are other tie-ins between “Groundhog Day” and “Lost,” and I certainly plan on renting the movie and watching it before February 2, 2010.
Overall, both “Groundhog Day” and “Lost” contain the similar theme of some mysterious outside force causing the main characters to do things over until they “get it right.”
I have also tried to examine the significance of “Lost” moving from its usual Wednesday evening time slot to Tuesdays. There is some Internet speculation the move is simply because ABC has finally developed a strong Wednesday, 9:00 lineup, with “Modern Family” followed by “Cougar Town.”
But I keep coming back to the fact that since Groundhog Day falls on a Tuesday next year, the move was absolutely necessary.
What do you think?
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Hey Fed Up Baseball Fans!
Are you a baseball fan who is fed up today with the players jumping from team to team, as they chase ridiculous contracts that pay them more in a single season than most of us will earn over a lifetime?
Are you also someone disgusted with the fact that in order to pay today's players those obscene contracts, that prices for tickets, concessions, and parking means that a family of four has to take out a loan to attend a major league game?
And do you agree with Jerry Seinfeld that we as fans are basically just “rooting for laundry” these days?
Then I suggest that you check out the MLB (Major League Baseball) Network, broadcast in HD. I barely watched the station during the past baseball season. However, the other night I was channel surfing and just as I happened to light on the MLB network, they were about to broadcast a film about the 1948 World Series.
Now I should mention that I am a life-long Cleveland Indians fan, which means I have suffered a great deal of pain and anguish during my lifetime. But in 1948 the Tribe actually won the World Series! While my father had told my brother and I stories about the Indians defeating the old Boston Braves in six games, I had never actually seen one minute of footage from that series.
This was before the World Series was televised nationally, and the film, apparently made to be shown in movie theatres, was in grainy black and white, with cheesy sound effects; for example a loud “clunk” every time the bat hit the ball.
I was mesmerized, drowning in nostalgia. Not only because I saw live action of many of my boyhood heroes, such as Bob Feller, Bob Lemon, Larry Doby (the first black player to play in the American League), Jim Hegan, Dale Mitchell, and player-manager Lou Boudreau.
But it was also fascinating seeing shots of the old Braves Field (which today is the home of Nickerson Field where Boston University plays its football and soccer games), Cleveland's old Municipal Stadium, where I went as a kid to watch Indians and Cleveland Browns games…AND Fenway Park. Yes the film opened with highlights of the Indians defeating the Red Sox 8-3 in the one-game playoff to capture the AL Pennant. Crowd shots were also fascinating, as most of the men in the stands were wearing ties and jackets along with fedora hats. Nobody was dressed in an over-priced, “official” MLB baseball hat or jersey. Many of the women were wearing hats with veils and fur stoles, and almost everyone had a cigarette or cigar hanging out of their mouth.
After watching the 1948 World Series, I then sat and viewed a film of the 1949 World Series highlights, between the NY Yankees and Brooklyn Dodgers.
What struck me most was the fact that these teams were truly teams, not a bunch of free agents glued together by multi-million dollar contracts. Even today I can recite off the top of my head many of the players who comprised the lineups for the Yankees and Dodgers in the late 1940s and through the 50s.
Let's see, for the Yankees there was Yogi Berra, Joe DiMaggio (replaced in 1951 by a rookie named Mickey Mantle), Billy Martin, Phil Rizutto, Hank Bauer, Gene Wooding, Whitey Ford, and Allie Reynolds. And the Dodgers of the era featured Jackie Robinson, Gil Hodges, Peewee Reese, Carl Furillo, Roy Campanella, Duke Snider, Don Newcombe, and Carl Erskine.
I seriously doubt I could as quickly name as many players who played for the 2009 versions of the Yankees and (now Los Angeles) Dodgers. And does it really matter, as many of those players probably will be wearing the laundry of a different team in 2010?
So I went on-line and checked out the schedule of the MLB Network, and while there are many shows analyzing modern baseball, I noted that they have managed to acquire films of old All Star Games (when the annual contest between the American League stars and the National League stars really meant something), many other World Series, and recaps of exciting past seasons from bygone eras.
So if you are a baseball fan and one night you can't find anything worthwhile to watch on the tube, I suggest you locate the MLB Network, crack open a YooHoo chocolate drink with your son or daughter, and show them what baseball was like in the good old days, when it truly was a game and not a business.
Are you also someone disgusted with the fact that in order to pay today's players those obscene contracts, that prices for tickets, concessions, and parking means that a family of four has to take out a loan to attend a major league game?
And do you agree with Jerry Seinfeld that we as fans are basically just “rooting for laundry” these days?
Then I suggest that you check out the MLB (Major League Baseball) Network, broadcast in HD. I barely watched the station during the past baseball season. However, the other night I was channel surfing and just as I happened to light on the MLB network, they were about to broadcast a film about the 1948 World Series.
Now I should mention that I am a life-long Cleveland Indians fan, which means I have suffered a great deal of pain and anguish during my lifetime. But in 1948 the Tribe actually won the World Series! While my father had told my brother and I stories about the Indians defeating the old Boston Braves in six games, I had never actually seen one minute of footage from that series.
This was before the World Series was televised nationally, and the film, apparently made to be shown in movie theatres, was in grainy black and white, with cheesy sound effects; for example a loud “clunk” every time the bat hit the ball.
I was mesmerized, drowning in nostalgia. Not only because I saw live action of many of my boyhood heroes, such as Bob Feller, Bob Lemon, Larry Doby (the first black player to play in the American League), Jim Hegan, Dale Mitchell, and player-manager Lou Boudreau.
But it was also fascinating seeing shots of the old Braves Field (which today is the home of Nickerson Field where Boston University plays its football and soccer games), Cleveland's old Municipal Stadium, where I went as a kid to watch Indians and Cleveland Browns games…AND Fenway Park. Yes the film opened with highlights of the Indians defeating the Red Sox 8-3 in the one-game playoff to capture the AL Pennant. Crowd shots were also fascinating, as most of the men in the stands were wearing ties and jackets along with fedora hats. Nobody was dressed in an over-priced, “official” MLB baseball hat or jersey. Many of the women were wearing hats with veils and fur stoles, and almost everyone had a cigarette or cigar hanging out of their mouth.
After watching the 1948 World Series, I then sat and viewed a film of the 1949 World Series highlights, between the NY Yankees and Brooklyn Dodgers.
What struck me most was the fact that these teams were truly teams, not a bunch of free agents glued together by multi-million dollar contracts. Even today I can recite off the top of my head many of the players who comprised the lineups for the Yankees and Dodgers in the late 1940s and through the 50s.
Let's see, for the Yankees there was Yogi Berra, Joe DiMaggio (replaced in 1951 by a rookie named Mickey Mantle), Billy Martin, Phil Rizutto, Hank Bauer, Gene Wooding, Whitey Ford, and Allie Reynolds. And the Dodgers of the era featured Jackie Robinson, Gil Hodges, Peewee Reese, Carl Furillo, Roy Campanella, Duke Snider, Don Newcombe, and Carl Erskine.
I seriously doubt I could as quickly name as many players who played for the 2009 versions of the Yankees and (now Los Angeles) Dodgers. And does it really matter, as many of those players probably will be wearing the laundry of a different team in 2010?
So I went on-line and checked out the schedule of the MLB Network, and while there are many shows analyzing modern baseball, I noted that they have managed to acquire films of old All Star Games (when the annual contest between the American League stars and the National League stars really meant something), many other World Series, and recaps of exciting past seasons from bygone eras.
So if you are a baseball fan and one night you can't find anything worthwhile to watch on the tube, I suggest you locate the MLB Network, crack open a YooHoo chocolate drink with your son or daughter, and show them what baseball was like in the good old days, when it truly was a game and not a business.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
TLC Airs Biased 'Jon & Kate' Episode
It's all over the news, at least in the “Jon & Kate” world, that TLC is suing Jon and Jon is counter-suing TLC…or something like that. It really doesn't matter who is suing whom.
So I wasn't surprised that in Monday's penultimate (a fancy word for second to last) episode of “Jon & Kate Plus 8,” the show was edited to portray Jon Gosselin in the worst possible light.
The episode, titled “Broken Dreams, Broken Promises, Broken Episodes” included footage shot over the past nine months that were going to be parts of various episodes, but were never aired for a variety of reasons; the main one being that the show's ratings are in the toilet.
I can just envision Kate and the TLC executives chuckling and editing the footage to depict Jon as lazy and irresponsible and Kate as a burgeoning rock star. Now I am certainly not defending Jon or his actions over the past year. But last night's show was so one-sided that it can be compared to Fox News coverage of an Obama health care speech.
(OK, I will try and be fair and balanced. Last night's show was so one-sided that it can be compared to MSNBC coverage of a Sarah Palin press conference. Everyone happy?)
The two most anti-Jon segments (which I am sure Kate's lawyers will try and enter as evidence if their divorce somehow goes to trial), were one called “Dog Training” and one called “Soccer and Swimming.”
In the former, Kate says “I kind of left it (the dog training) to him and not a lot of training occurred,” implying that it was Jon's laziness that led to the family having to return the two German Shepherds to the kennel. Kate added “It takes a whole lot of work, energy, training and time…and as the dogs got bigger they got worse.”
There were also shots of Jon manning the electronic dog collars for the dogs followed by Kate (probably auditioning for her inevitable talk show) then quipping “maybe we should have used a collar for other people.”
In the “Soccer and Swimming” segment Kate complained that Jon doesn't do “projects” with the kids, followed by a shot of Maddy whining “I don't want to play with Daddy.” Kate added that “he is on the phone a lot.” Cut to a shot of one of the little girls begging Jon for a Popsicle, while he ignores her and texts on his cell phone. Kate then asserted that Jon's phone usage involves calls to “friends,” while when she is on the phone it involves work.
There was also a rather lengthy shot of Jon yakking it up with the evil paparazzi while the kids wanted to go swimming.
Moreover, to demonstrate how popular Kate is with her fans, there was a segment titled “Book Tour” that showed her speaking before a cheering throng at a Southern Women's Conference in North Carolina and later at a book signing where one couple admitted to standing in line for 12 hours to finally meet their idol!
Finally we all saw how big Kate's heart is, as she prepared dinner for the families at the Ronald McDonald House, and later announced that “dinner is served from ‘Jon and Kate Plus Eight'…minus Jon.” Of course the TLC crew laughed at all of her quips.
So now only one episode remains, and supposedly it will include both Jon and Kate together, and according to a report in the NY Post, this “sitdown” will "provide new insights on their recent life events" and forecast "what the future holds for them and their eight children.”
I hope things turn out better than Michael Corleone's “sitdown” with Sollozzo and Captain McCluskey in “The Godfather.” Watch out Jon if Kate excuses herself to go to the bathroom!
So I wasn't surprised that in Monday's penultimate (a fancy word for second to last) episode of “Jon & Kate Plus 8,” the show was edited to portray Jon Gosselin in the worst possible light.
The episode, titled “Broken Dreams, Broken Promises, Broken Episodes” included footage shot over the past nine months that were going to be parts of various episodes, but were never aired for a variety of reasons; the main one being that the show's ratings are in the toilet.
I can just envision Kate and the TLC executives chuckling and editing the footage to depict Jon as lazy and irresponsible and Kate as a burgeoning rock star. Now I am certainly not defending Jon or his actions over the past year. But last night's show was so one-sided that it can be compared to Fox News coverage of an Obama health care speech.
(OK, I will try and be fair and balanced. Last night's show was so one-sided that it can be compared to MSNBC coverage of a Sarah Palin press conference. Everyone happy?)
The two most anti-Jon segments (which I am sure Kate's lawyers will try and enter as evidence if their divorce somehow goes to trial), were one called “Dog Training” and one called “Soccer and Swimming.”
In the former, Kate says “I kind of left it (the dog training) to him and not a lot of training occurred,” implying that it was Jon's laziness that led to the family having to return the two German Shepherds to the kennel. Kate added “It takes a whole lot of work, energy, training and time…and as the dogs got bigger they got worse.”
There were also shots of Jon manning the electronic dog collars for the dogs followed by Kate (probably auditioning for her inevitable talk show) then quipping “maybe we should have used a collar for other people.”
In the “Soccer and Swimming” segment Kate complained that Jon doesn't do “projects” with the kids, followed by a shot of Maddy whining “I don't want to play with Daddy.” Kate added that “he is on the phone a lot.” Cut to a shot of one of the little girls begging Jon for a Popsicle, while he ignores her and texts on his cell phone. Kate then asserted that Jon's phone usage involves calls to “friends,” while when she is on the phone it involves work.
There was also a rather lengthy shot of Jon yakking it up with the evil paparazzi while the kids wanted to go swimming.
Moreover, to demonstrate how popular Kate is with her fans, there was a segment titled “Book Tour” that showed her speaking before a cheering throng at a Southern Women's Conference in North Carolina and later at a book signing where one couple admitted to standing in line for 12 hours to finally meet their idol!
Finally we all saw how big Kate's heart is, as she prepared dinner for the families at the Ronald McDonald House, and later announced that “dinner is served from ‘Jon and Kate Plus Eight'…minus Jon.” Of course the TLC crew laughed at all of her quips.
So now only one episode remains, and supposedly it will include both Jon and Kate together, and according to a report in the NY Post, this “sitdown” will "provide new insights on their recent life events" and forecast "what the future holds for them and their eight children.”
I hope things turn out better than Michael Corleone's “sitdown” with Sollozzo and Captain McCluskey in “The Godfather.” Watch out Jon if Kate excuses herself to go to the bathroom!
Monday, November 16, 2009
When the 'Curb' and 'Seinfeld' Worlds Collide...Magic Happens!
Now that's what I am talking about!
Sunday night's episode of “Curb Your Enthusiasm,” titled “The Table Read,” was as brilliant a piece of television comedy that I can ever recall viewing. By blending it with a pseudo-Seinfeld reunion rehearsal, Larry David managed to capture the best of both shows.
Frankly I had thought that this season of “Curb” had not been Larry at his best, but all is forgiven after last night's hilarious show.
It wasn't just the pure comedy, but the weaving together of snippets of both shows into 45 minutes of pure genius. Perhaps one must be a fanatic follower of every episode of “Curb” and “Seinfeld” to totally appreciate the humor (as I am), but I for one could not stop laughing throughout the show.
(By the way I am also a fanatic football fan, but was so enthralled by this episode that I watched it INSTEAD of viewing the Patriots-Colts game, a decision that totally shocked my wife.)
I thought it was fascinating to see actors Julia Louis-Dreyfus, Jason Alexander, and Michael Richards morph into their Elaine, George, and Kramer characters. Of course Jerry always appears as just himself, whether on stage, or on his or Larry's show.
There were great pure “Curb” references such as Marty Funkhouser showing up uninvited to the table reading. And pure “Seinfeld” references, such as Jerry once again delivering the famous “Hello Newman” line and the appearance by mediocre comedian Kenny Banya complaining that the economy was killing his already moribund career. Of course as in every “Seinfeld” episode there had to be a Superman reference, which last night involved Jerry being surprised that Elaine already knew about the Fortress of Solitude crystals.
But what really made the show a classic was when the “Curb” and “Seinfeld” worlds collided, best exemplified by Kramer being diagnosed with the fictitious Groats disease (which Larry had helped raise money for in a Season two episode).
In the piece de resistance of the whole “Curb” season came the interaction between Michael Richards and Larry's “boarder” Leon (JB Smoove). The latter's attempts to portray Danny Duberstein; a white Jewish accountant who had passed away from Groats has to rank as one of the funniest scenes in any show ever!
Naturally that scene led to Richards going off on another racist tirade with bystanders all around taping the scene on their cell phones. Kudos to “Kramer” for allowing Larry to reprise that incident, which in real life practically ruined his career.
Overall the show worked on so many levels and left me totally satisfied and looking forward to next week's season finale. And if you were a more loyal Patriots fan than I and missed the show or forgot to DVR it, make sure you catch it on reruns of HBO later this week!
You won't be sorry.
Sunday night's episode of “Curb Your Enthusiasm,” titled “The Table Read,” was as brilliant a piece of television comedy that I can ever recall viewing. By blending it with a pseudo-Seinfeld reunion rehearsal, Larry David managed to capture the best of both shows.
Frankly I had thought that this season of “Curb” had not been Larry at his best, but all is forgiven after last night's hilarious show.
It wasn't just the pure comedy, but the weaving together of snippets of both shows into 45 minutes of pure genius. Perhaps one must be a fanatic follower of every episode of “Curb” and “Seinfeld” to totally appreciate the humor (as I am), but I for one could not stop laughing throughout the show.
(By the way I am also a fanatic football fan, but was so enthralled by this episode that I watched it INSTEAD of viewing the Patriots-Colts game, a decision that totally shocked my wife.)
I thought it was fascinating to see actors Julia Louis-Dreyfus, Jason Alexander, and Michael Richards morph into their Elaine, George, and Kramer characters. Of course Jerry always appears as just himself, whether on stage, or on his or Larry's show.
There were great pure “Curb” references such as Marty Funkhouser showing up uninvited to the table reading. And pure “Seinfeld” references, such as Jerry once again delivering the famous “Hello Newman” line and the appearance by mediocre comedian Kenny Banya complaining that the economy was killing his already moribund career. Of course as in every “Seinfeld” episode there had to be a Superman reference, which last night involved Jerry being surprised that Elaine already knew about the Fortress of Solitude crystals.
But what really made the show a classic was when the “Curb” and “Seinfeld” worlds collided, best exemplified by Kramer being diagnosed with the fictitious Groats disease (which Larry had helped raise money for in a Season two episode).
In the piece de resistance of the whole “Curb” season came the interaction between Michael Richards and Larry's “boarder” Leon (JB Smoove). The latter's attempts to portray Danny Duberstein; a white Jewish accountant who had passed away from Groats has to rank as one of the funniest scenes in any show ever!
Naturally that scene led to Richards going off on another racist tirade with bystanders all around taping the scene on their cell phones. Kudos to “Kramer” for allowing Larry to reprise that incident, which in real life practically ruined his career.
Overall the show worked on so many levels and left me totally satisfied and looking forward to next week's season finale. And if you were a more loyal Patriots fan than I and missed the show or forgot to DVR it, make sure you catch it on reruns of HBO later this week!
You won't be sorry.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Reviewing the Viewers' Choices of Favorite ‘Jon & Kate' Moments
Against my better judgment I decided to DVR Monday night's episode of “Jon & Kate Plus 8” and watch it a day later. Yes, for those of you who are interested enough in the comings and goings of the Gosselins to be reading this article, TLC is still airing new “J & K” episodes.
BUT, stealing a strategy from “Lost,” TLC has announced an end date for this (apparently) final season of “Jon & Kate Plus 8.” A blurb on the screen the other night stated that there are only two more new episodes. Therefore, if my math is correct, the final “J & K” show will be aired on But back to Monday's show. For the third consecutive week it centered around Kate, sitting alone on a couch. Instead of answering viewers' or an interviewer's questions (like she did the last two weeks), Kate commented on a compilation of “Viewers' Top Moments” from the show's five seasons, as taken from a TLC.com poll.
Watching these moments did bring back some memories of why my family and I were drawn to the show in the first place, along with more recent memories of why so many people have turned against the show in the past year. Even Kate commented that these memories would include “the good, the bad, and the ugly.”
So, counting backwards, David Letterman-style, here is a recap of the top ten moments, divided by categories (along with some of Kate's comments):
10) “Biggest Blow-Up” – Kate's explosion at Toys “R” Us, where she screams at Jon to “stop playing with toys and come help!” Jon responded (perhaps in a foreshadowing of events to come) “you need to stop yelling.” On the couch, Kate admitted that seeing that scene when it first aired was a “wakeup call” for her, and she claimed that she never yelled at Jon in public again.
9) “Cutest Kid Moment” – Alexis in her crib saying “Hi Mommy, hi Mommy,” when Kate returned from the hospital after her tummy tuck. I must admit it was a really cute and touching scene. Kate commented it was her all time favorite moment.
8) “Top Ouchie Moment” – Alexis falling in the woods and biting through her lip while Kate was in San Diego with daughter Maddy. “It breaks my heart that I wasn't there,” was Kate's comment. At least she wasn't at a book signing.
7) “Top Family Milestone” – First visit to the dentist with all eight kids. It was cute the way that the eight kids sat in the dentist's chair, two by two, holding hands.
6) “Cutest Kid Sayings” – Leah reporting that “Hannah pooped in Hannah's underwears” while they were in the process of being potty-trained. I thought it somewhat ironic that the runner up was Joel saying that “Daddies have wieners.” Another case of foreshadowing? Enough said.
5) Top Family Portrait – The picture of the sextuplets as babies in strollers in front of their first much smaller house. The house was much smaller than their current estate, Kate looked much less attractive, BUT everyone looked so happy back then.
4) Most Heartwarming Moment – Hannah saying goodbye and kissing her brothers and sisters. Kate said it demonstrated the “love all parents hope that kids will have for each other.” Being a parent myself, I agree.
3) Most Memorable Meltdown - They showed several of Kate's meltdowns, but the winner took place on their plane ride to Utah, with all the kids crying and Jon and Kate having just heard the announcement that they were going to have to land in Boise, Idaho instead of Utah. “I just had had enough and didn't care about the cameras” was a telling comment by Kate. She then added “Although I felt like I had a lot of stress in my life then, (uh) I had seen nothing yet.”
2) Best Family Trip – Their trip to Hawaii, although on Monday's show they failed to mention this is when Jon and Kate renewed their wedding vows, and it was just over a year ago.
1) Most Shocking Moment -After all the cute and tender family moments, again it is ironic that the number one moment (as voted by viewers) was Jon and Kate announcing their separation. On Monday's show, Kate then said “You get married young, you don't know who you are…At some point you get older and people change …I am different but I still think I was me all along. For Jon, I think that he discovered he is somebody different from whom we knew him to be.”
So now we know that next week's show is called “Gymnastic and Baseball,” and the final “Jon & Kate” show, which will be aired three days before Thanksgiving, will probably be yet another recap show.
And then the show will finally end…or will it? After all, as many times as Jason has been done in, the “Friday the 13th” franchise is still alive.
BUT, stealing a strategy from “Lost,” TLC has announced an end date for this (apparently) final season of “Jon & Kate Plus 8.” A blurb on the screen the other night stated that there are only two more new episodes. Therefore, if my math is correct, the final “J & K” show will be aired on But back to Monday's show. For the third consecutive week it centered around Kate, sitting alone on a couch. Instead of answering viewers' or an interviewer's questions (like she did the last two weeks), Kate commented on a compilation of “Viewers' Top Moments” from the show's five seasons, as taken from a TLC.com poll.
Watching these moments did bring back some memories of why my family and I were drawn to the show in the first place, along with more recent memories of why so many people have turned against the show in the past year. Even Kate commented that these memories would include “the good, the bad, and the ugly.”
So, counting backwards, David Letterman-style, here is a recap of the top ten moments, divided by categories (along with some of Kate's comments):
10) “Biggest Blow-Up” – Kate's explosion at Toys “R” Us, where she screams at Jon to “stop playing with toys and come help!” Jon responded (perhaps in a foreshadowing of events to come) “you need to stop yelling.” On the couch, Kate admitted that seeing that scene when it first aired was a “wakeup call” for her, and she claimed that she never yelled at Jon in public again.
9) “Cutest Kid Moment” – Alexis in her crib saying “Hi Mommy, hi Mommy,” when Kate returned from the hospital after her tummy tuck. I must admit it was a really cute and touching scene. Kate commented it was her all time favorite moment.
8) “Top Ouchie Moment” – Alexis falling in the woods and biting through her lip while Kate was in San Diego with daughter Maddy. “It breaks my heart that I wasn't there,” was Kate's comment. At least she wasn't at a book signing.
7) “Top Family Milestone” – First visit to the dentist with all eight kids. It was cute the way that the eight kids sat in the dentist's chair, two by two, holding hands.
6) “Cutest Kid Sayings” – Leah reporting that “Hannah pooped in Hannah's underwears” while they were in the process of being potty-trained. I thought it somewhat ironic that the runner up was Joel saying that “Daddies have wieners.” Another case of foreshadowing? Enough said.
5) Top Family Portrait – The picture of the sextuplets as babies in strollers in front of their first much smaller house. The house was much smaller than their current estate, Kate looked much less attractive, BUT everyone looked so happy back then.
4) Most Heartwarming Moment – Hannah saying goodbye and kissing her brothers and sisters. Kate said it demonstrated the “love all parents hope that kids will have for each other.” Being a parent myself, I agree.
3) Most Memorable Meltdown - They showed several of Kate's meltdowns, but the winner took place on their plane ride to Utah, with all the kids crying and Jon and Kate having just heard the announcement that they were going to have to land in Boise, Idaho instead of Utah. “I just had had enough and didn't care about the cameras” was a telling comment by Kate. She then added “Although I felt like I had a lot of stress in my life then, (uh) I had seen nothing yet.”
2) Best Family Trip – Their trip to Hawaii, although on Monday's show they failed to mention this is when Jon and Kate renewed their wedding vows, and it was just over a year ago.
1) Most Shocking Moment -After all the cute and tender family moments, again it is ironic that the number one moment (as voted by viewers) was Jon and Kate announcing their separation. On Monday's show, Kate then said “You get married young, you don't know who you are…At some point you get older and people change …I am different but I still think I was me all along. For Jon, I think that he discovered he is somebody different from whom we knew him to be.”
So now we know that next week's show is called “Gymnastic and Baseball,” and the final “Jon & Kate” show, which will be aired three days before Thanksgiving, will probably be yet another recap show.
And then the show will finally end…or will it? After all, as many times as Jason has been done in, the “Friday the 13th” franchise is still alive.
Friday, November 6, 2009
'The Office': Is Pam's Mother a 'Cougar'?
Last night's episode of “The Office” was a perfect demonstration of the problem that many older women have when dating much younger men. Of course the term for such women these days is “cougar.” (See related stories for “The Truth about Dating” column.)
Helene Beesly, Pam's mother (played by Linda Purl) is a very attractive 58 year old woman who has been having a fling with Pam's boss, the infamous Michael Scott, ever since they met at Jim and Pam's wedding. Related Stories
As socially oblivious as Michael is, he is not a bad looking guy and has had no problem bedding down various “girl” friends over the course of the show's six seasons. At his core, though, Michael is very lonely and yearns to start his own family. (We learn at the end of the episode that Michael's dream family includes a wife and four kids who play with Jim and Pam's kids outside of his “hover house.”)
So without thinking of the consequences of his actions (which Michael rarely if ever does), he jumped at the chance to start a relationship with Helene. And he couldn't help but inappropriately comment many times over the past several episodes what a great sexual relationship he and Helene were having.
But last night it was Helene's birthday. Naturally Michael went overboard planning her birthday lunch at a ritzy restaurant. The table was lavishly decorated, he had already given Helene an expensive necklace, and he had spent hours putting together a scrapbook of memories from their brief relationship. The scrapbook included a poem in which Michael professed his love for Helene.
When we first met Helene at the rehearsal dinner the night before Pam's wedding, she was depressed, as her husband had left her for a much younger woman. But now, as they sat in the restaurant, Helene was full of joy, smiling at every silly comment Michael made.
But then, the “s__” hit the fan, as after Pam asked “So mom, what birthday are we celebrating, Helene kiddingly said that she was “sticking with 49.” Pam then mentioned that this was the ninth time she was celebrating that particular birthday.
Sharp as a tack, Michael immediately picked up on Pam's comment and added nine to 49 on an envelope and said with a grimace, “So you're 54?” To which Helene responded, “No, I'm 58.”
I believe in a previous episode it was determined that Michael is around 41 and that he very much wants his own children. So from that moment on, he became determined to end his relationship with Helene.
Like a ton of bricks, it hit Michael that the life he would like to live with the things he would like to do (such as participating in a triathlon as soon as he learns how to swim) would be very difficult to accomplish with a woman approaching 60.
And he commented to the ever present camera in his totally inappropriate way that by dating Helene he was “robbing the grave.”
All humor aside, unfortunately this is the eventual outcome of most relationships that cougars have with much younger men. Of course there are many, many very active 58 year old women, and I am sure that some of them have even competed in and won triathlons.
But the one obstacle they cannot overcome is the starting a family hurdle. As Michael stated in his own bumbling way, “Its Mother Nature and even mother has very strict rules about fer (pause) tility.” (I won't bother to explain the pause.)
Helene Beesly, Pam's mother (played by Linda Purl) is a very attractive 58 year old woman who has been having a fling with Pam's boss, the infamous Michael Scott, ever since they met at Jim and Pam's wedding. Related Stories
As socially oblivious as Michael is, he is not a bad looking guy and has had no problem bedding down various “girl” friends over the course of the show's six seasons. At his core, though, Michael is very lonely and yearns to start his own family. (We learn at the end of the episode that Michael's dream family includes a wife and four kids who play with Jim and Pam's kids outside of his “hover house.”)
So without thinking of the consequences of his actions (which Michael rarely if ever does), he jumped at the chance to start a relationship with Helene. And he couldn't help but inappropriately comment many times over the past several episodes what a great sexual relationship he and Helene were having.
But last night it was Helene's birthday. Naturally Michael went overboard planning her birthday lunch at a ritzy restaurant. The table was lavishly decorated, he had already given Helene an expensive necklace, and he had spent hours putting together a scrapbook of memories from their brief relationship. The scrapbook included a poem in which Michael professed his love for Helene.
When we first met Helene at the rehearsal dinner the night before Pam's wedding, she was depressed, as her husband had left her for a much younger woman. But now, as they sat in the restaurant, Helene was full of joy, smiling at every silly comment Michael made.
But then, the “s__” hit the fan, as after Pam asked “So mom, what birthday are we celebrating, Helene kiddingly said that she was “sticking with 49.” Pam then mentioned that this was the ninth time she was celebrating that particular birthday.
Sharp as a tack, Michael immediately picked up on Pam's comment and added nine to 49 on an envelope and said with a grimace, “So you're 54?” To which Helene responded, “No, I'm 58.”
I believe in a previous episode it was determined that Michael is around 41 and that he very much wants his own children. So from that moment on, he became determined to end his relationship with Helene.
Like a ton of bricks, it hit Michael that the life he would like to live with the things he would like to do (such as participating in a triathlon as soon as he learns how to swim) would be very difficult to accomplish with a woman approaching 60.
And he commented to the ever present camera in his totally inappropriate way that by dating Helene he was “robbing the grave.”
All humor aside, unfortunately this is the eventual outcome of most relationships that cougars have with much younger men. Of course there are many, many very active 58 year old women, and I am sure that some of them have even competed in and won triathlons.
But the one obstacle they cannot overcome is the starting a family hurdle. As Michael stated in his own bumbling way, “Its Mother Nature and even mother has very strict rules about fer (pause) tility.” (I won't bother to explain the pause.)
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Favorite Actor 'Crossovers'
You know what’s really annoying?
How about when you are watching one of your favorite shows and you spot an actor or recognize a voice, and you just KNOW that you have seen him or her before, but you just can’t quite remember when or where?
I don’t know about you, but that type of thing just sticks in my mind and drives me nuts for hours or sometimes even days. In my case it might just be an “age thing.”
I call such cases where an actor or actress appears on different shows “crossovers,” and in the public interest, from time to time, I will list interesting (at least to me) crossovers that I have spotted.
A similar type of crossover occurs when you are watching an old “Bonanza” or “M*A*S*H” rerun and spot someone, perhaps a child actor who is still acting as an adult today, and you know he or she looks very familiar, but can’t quite place the name, face, or voice.
So here are some recent crossovers that I have uncovered:
* To me the “Queen of Crossovers” is Sonya Walger, who is currently Dr. Olivia Benford on “FlashForward,” and Penny Widmore on “Lost.” It does perturb me a bit when the same actress appears on two shows that are on air at the same time. But I also recall Sonya as Carolyn (who desperately wanted to get pregnant) on HBO’s short-lived “Tell Me You Love Me” and Special Agent Patrice Serxner on USA Cable’s “Sleeper Cell,” where she actually was beheaded! I also enjoyed her on another HBO show, “The Mind of the Married Man,” where she played the actor Michael Binder’s wife, Donna Barnes.
* Recently on “FlashForward” I recognized a certain British accent, and I just knew that I had heard that voice before, but could not place it. Eventually I realized that the actor (Jack Davenport) who plays Lloyd Simcoe, the father of the autistic boy Dylan AND the man who is involved with Sonya Walger (of course) in her flashforward, starred as Steve Taylor on my favorite British television show “Coupling.”
* In a great scene between two apparent “villains,” Davenport appeared on “FlashForward” with Dominic Monaghan who was the sweet and lovable “Chah-lie” Pace on “Lost,” but now plays the menacing Simon.
* Another popular actress who seems to be popping up everywhere these days is Embeth Davidtz, who also is recognizable by her short cropped hair and her clipped British accent. Embeth seems perfectly cast as a somewhat uptight bitchy woman on “Californication” as Felicia Koons, a sexually-frustrated college administrator, and on “Mad Men” as Rebecca Pryce, the home sick, miserable wife of Lane Pryce, the British bloke who now runs the Sterling Cooper agency. But Embeth was at her bitchiest best playing the unhappy wife Amy on the first season of HBO’s “In Treatment.”
* Speaking of “Mad Men,” when I first saw Elisabeth Moss’s Peggy Olson character, I knew that she looked very familiar, and after a great deal of anguish (yes I take these crossover hunts very seriously), I remembered that she had played the President’s kidnapped daughter, Zoey Bartlet, on the great “West Wing” series.
* Recently I was watching one of my daughter’s favorite movies from years ago, “Fly Away Home,” (crossovers can also apply to movies) about a young girl who becomes attached to a flock of geese (actually the geese become attached to her), and I immediately realized that the girl was played by none other than Anna Paquin, better know these days as Sookie Stackhouse of “True Blood.”
* Want another “True Blood” crossover? How about Michelle Forbes, who played the demon (or should I say the Maenad?) Maryann Forrester and who also appeared on both seasons of “In Treatment” as Kate, the cheating but misunderstood wife of series star, Paul Weston.
* A really good obscure crossover is the character actor, John Billingsley, who has perfected playing such nerdy misfits as Mike Spencer on “True Blood,” and whom I loved in the short-lived hostage series “The Nine,” where he played Egan Foote, the nerd turned hero.
* Of course one of the all-time classic crossovers occurred when E Street Band guitarist Little Steven Van Zandt donned a black toupee and turned up as Silvio Dante, owner of the Bada Bing strip club on “The Sopranos.”
Anyway, I would love to hear from any readers who might suggest their favorite crossovers. But remember a quality crossover (like a quality trivia question) cannot be too obvious. Don’t send me Elizabeth Mitchell who plays Juliet Burke on “Lost” and FBI agent Erica Evans on “FlashForward” or Michael C. Hall, aka Dexter Morgan and David Fisher from “Six Feet Under.”
A much better “Dexter” crossover would be James Remar, who portrays Dexter’s dead father Harry Morgan and who was multi-millionaire Richard Wright, the a-hole who cheated and broke Samantha’s heart on “Sex and the City.”
How about when you are watching one of your favorite shows and you spot an actor or recognize a voice, and you just KNOW that you have seen him or her before, but you just can’t quite remember when or where?
I don’t know about you, but that type of thing just sticks in my mind and drives me nuts for hours or sometimes even days. In my case it might just be an “age thing.”
I call such cases where an actor or actress appears on different shows “crossovers,” and in the public interest, from time to time, I will list interesting (at least to me) crossovers that I have spotted.
A similar type of crossover occurs when you are watching an old “Bonanza” or “M*A*S*H” rerun and spot someone, perhaps a child actor who is still acting as an adult today, and you know he or she looks very familiar, but can’t quite place the name, face, or voice.
So here are some recent crossovers that I have uncovered:
* To me the “Queen of Crossovers” is Sonya Walger, who is currently Dr. Olivia Benford on “FlashForward,” and Penny Widmore on “Lost.” It does perturb me a bit when the same actress appears on two shows that are on air at the same time. But I also recall Sonya as Carolyn (who desperately wanted to get pregnant) on HBO’s short-lived “Tell Me You Love Me” and Special Agent Patrice Serxner on USA Cable’s “Sleeper Cell,” where she actually was beheaded! I also enjoyed her on another HBO show, “The Mind of the Married Man,” where she played the actor Michael Binder’s wife, Donna Barnes.
* Recently on “FlashForward” I recognized a certain British accent, and I just knew that I had heard that voice before, but could not place it. Eventually I realized that the actor (Jack Davenport) who plays Lloyd Simcoe, the father of the autistic boy Dylan AND the man who is involved with Sonya Walger (of course) in her flashforward, starred as Steve Taylor on my favorite British television show “Coupling.”
* In a great scene between two apparent “villains,” Davenport appeared on “FlashForward” with Dominic Monaghan who was the sweet and lovable “Chah-lie” Pace on “Lost,” but now plays the menacing Simon.
* Another popular actress who seems to be popping up everywhere these days is Embeth Davidtz, who also is recognizable by her short cropped hair and her clipped British accent. Embeth seems perfectly cast as a somewhat uptight bitchy woman on “Californication” as Felicia Koons, a sexually-frustrated college administrator, and on “Mad Men” as Rebecca Pryce, the home sick, miserable wife of Lane Pryce, the British bloke who now runs the Sterling Cooper agency. But Embeth was at her bitchiest best playing the unhappy wife Amy on the first season of HBO’s “In Treatment.”
* Speaking of “Mad Men,” when I first saw Elisabeth Moss’s Peggy Olson character, I knew that she looked very familiar, and after a great deal of anguish (yes I take these crossover hunts very seriously), I remembered that she had played the President’s kidnapped daughter, Zoey Bartlet, on the great “West Wing” series.
* Recently I was watching one of my daughter’s favorite movies from years ago, “Fly Away Home,” (crossovers can also apply to movies) about a young girl who becomes attached to a flock of geese (actually the geese become attached to her), and I immediately realized that the girl was played by none other than Anna Paquin, better know these days as Sookie Stackhouse of “True Blood.”
* Want another “True Blood” crossover? How about Michelle Forbes, who played the demon (or should I say the Maenad?) Maryann Forrester and who also appeared on both seasons of “In Treatment” as Kate, the cheating but misunderstood wife of series star, Paul Weston.
* A really good obscure crossover is the character actor, John Billingsley, who has perfected playing such nerdy misfits as Mike Spencer on “True Blood,” and whom I loved in the short-lived hostage series “The Nine,” where he played Egan Foote, the nerd turned hero.
* Of course one of the all-time classic crossovers occurred when E Street Band guitarist Little Steven Van Zandt donned a black toupee and turned up as Silvio Dante, owner of the Bada Bing strip club on “The Sopranos.”
Anyway, I would love to hear from any readers who might suggest their favorite crossovers. But remember a quality crossover (like a quality trivia question) cannot be too obvious. Don’t send me Elizabeth Mitchell who plays Juliet Burke on “Lost” and FBI agent Erica Evans on “FlashForward” or Michael C. Hall, aka Dexter Morgan and David Fisher from “Six Feet Under.”
A much better “Dexter” crossover would be James Remar, who portrays Dexter’s dead father Harry Morgan and who was multi-millionaire Richard Wright, the a-hole who cheated and broke Samantha’s heart on “Sex and the City.”
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
'V' Is for Very 'Nice'
If you love the ABC show “Lost,” and you have become quickly addicted to the ABC show “FlashForward,” then you probably will be somewhat bored as I was by the new ABC show “V,” which premiered last night.
On the other hand, if you find both "Lost” and “FlashForward” too complicated, too complex, and too difficult to follow, then “V” might be just the right sci-fi show for you.
“V” is a remake of the 1980s series about visitors from another planet who come to Earth and promise to exchange their technology for our water and our friendship. The show reminds me why I was not too enthralled with television back then.
Right off the top you realize that there are good guys and bad guys, and that some of the good guys will be initially seduced by the bad guys. But of course at the end, somehow, the good guys will prevail. I am sure that George Bush and his cohorts will probably love the show.
That was the way television rolled back then. This new version of “V” is for people who like to sit back on their sofas and go along for a nice, safe comfortable ride. It is not for people (like myself) who prefer analyzing every scene and trying to figure out the meaning of “Lost's” numbers or the names pinned on Agent Benford's bulletin board. (And who still isn't sure if Ben or Locke are ultimately good guys or bad guys.)
I am not saying that “V” is not an entertaining show. I am sure that it will capture decent ratings. Furthermore, with the special effects that are available today, it will also be visually dramatic. Giant spaceships hovering over the world's capitals are tailor-made images for a 50-inch HDTV.
The original series was supposedly an allegory of how the Nazi's took advantage of people's economic angst to take control of Germany back in the 1920s, and this version of “V” makes considerable mention of the recent world-wide economic recession.
Moreover, it was updated in other ways, with references to terrorist sleeper cells, far away wars, a hubris-filled cable news anchor, and of course cell phones and the Internet. And most of all, every person under the age of 30 calls each other “dude.” (100 years from now when people look back at movies and television shows from today, the overuse of the term “dude” will definitely be labeled as the benchmark catchword of the day.)
Since Disney owns ABC, I'll finish up with an analogy using roller coasters from Disney World. “V” is like Thunder Mountain, exciting but relatively gentle for a roller coaster, with the highlights being the animatronic figures you see as you whiz by. “Lost” and “Flash Forward” are akin to Space Mountain, which, while not being the fastest roller coaster in the world, blasts you off on a hair-raising, intense ride through the dark with surprising twists and turns that make it far more exciting.
On the other hand, if you find both "Lost” and “FlashForward” too complicated, too complex, and too difficult to follow, then “V” might be just the right sci-fi show for you.
“V” is a remake of the 1980s series about visitors from another planet who come to Earth and promise to exchange their technology for our water and our friendship. The show reminds me why I was not too enthralled with television back then.
Right off the top you realize that there are good guys and bad guys, and that some of the good guys will be initially seduced by the bad guys. But of course at the end, somehow, the good guys will prevail. I am sure that George Bush and his cohorts will probably love the show.
That was the way television rolled back then. This new version of “V” is for people who like to sit back on their sofas and go along for a nice, safe comfortable ride. It is not for people (like myself) who prefer analyzing every scene and trying to figure out the meaning of “Lost's” numbers or the names pinned on Agent Benford's bulletin board. (And who still isn't sure if Ben or Locke are ultimately good guys or bad guys.)
I am not saying that “V” is not an entertaining show. I am sure that it will capture decent ratings. Furthermore, with the special effects that are available today, it will also be visually dramatic. Giant spaceships hovering over the world's capitals are tailor-made images for a 50-inch HDTV.
The original series was supposedly an allegory of how the Nazi's took advantage of people's economic angst to take control of Germany back in the 1920s, and this version of “V” makes considerable mention of the recent world-wide economic recession.
Moreover, it was updated in other ways, with references to terrorist sleeper cells, far away wars, a hubris-filled cable news anchor, and of course cell phones and the Internet. And most of all, every person under the age of 30 calls each other “dude.” (100 years from now when people look back at movies and television shows from today, the overuse of the term “dude” will definitely be labeled as the benchmark catchword of the day.)
Since Disney owns ABC, I'll finish up with an analogy using roller coasters from Disney World. “V” is like Thunder Mountain, exciting but relatively gentle for a roller coaster, with the highlights being the animatronic figures you see as you whiz by. “Lost” and “Flash Forward” are akin to Space Mountain, which, while not being the fastest roller coaster in the world, blasts you off on a hair-raising, intense ride through the dark with surprising twists and turns that make it far more exciting.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
'Jon & Kate': The Show that Won't Die!
Last week I speculated that the one hour “Viewers Ask Questions” interview with Kate Gosselin would be the final show of the “Jon & Kate Plus 8” saga.
Boy was I wrong. Unlike even some vampires (i.e. Godric on “True Blood”), this is a show that won't die. Desperate for ratings, I guess that TLC plans on squeezing every little drop of blood out of the Gosselin family. (And how ironic is it that “TLC” actually stands for “The Learning Channel?”)
So last night we were treated to another one hour interview with Kate; this time the interview was conducted by Natalie Morales of NBC News, supposedly to give the interview more credibility. Of course we all know that the “news” today is more fluff than substance. And full of fluff is the best way to describe the softball questions (with no follow-ups) that Ms. Morales tossed Kate's way.
Somehow I just can't picture Edward R. Murrow or Mike Wallace conducting the same interview.
So once again we got to hear how Kate loves her children, would do nothing that would ever harm them, and that she originally signed up to do a reality show, not to be a “tabloid staple.” Oh, and that her and the paparazzi have a “hate-hate” relationship.
While tears welled up in Kate's eyes as she paused to answer questions about Jon's infidelities, her middle of the night meltdowns, and the positive and negative lessons she has learned (I guess it is “The Learning Channel” after all), there were moments I had difficulty hearing what she was saying, because of the jangling of her jewelry while she wiped her eyes.
I also became distracted by her contrived speech patterns that I first noticed weeks ago during an interview with Larry King.
So do I believe that Kate only cares about her children's welfare? No I don't.
Do I watch too many Jon and Kate interviews? Absolutely.
Do I regret watching all of these interviews? Absolutely.
(Excuse me while I try and contain myself for a moment.)
Okay, here's what I thought was the most interesting aspect of last night's interview, and that involves the questions that Ms. Morales asked dealing with Kate's relationship with her parents and siblings.
First Kate mentioned that she was the middle of five children, and that she was “the forgotten child.” (Hmm, could this have anything to do with her decision to get on a reality show?)
When asked about her current relationship with her parents, Kate said that it was basically an email one, and that they do not talk. But what I found most telling is the fact that this split between Kate and her family (apparently only one sister now supports her) happened NOT in the past year, but long ago.
In fact Kate admitted that her falling out with her parents occurred after the sextuplets were born, but BEFORE the television series! Kate's explanation of the problems with her parents was “that was the beginning of me realizing everyone has an opinion and sometimes those opinions aren't my opinions….and at that time I felt like it was best just to step back and take a break.”
Wow! So she basically decided to confine her relationship with her parents (and the children's grandparents) to emails because of a difference of opinion! Can you imagine if all of us did that with parents and siblings?
Back to the most important subject: Kate's future in television. First I must mention that I thought Kate looked just “mahvelous” during this interview. Obviously it's just a matter of time until her talk show premiers.
Anyway, checking my channel guide, it appears that TLC will continue to come up with new shows from already filmed footage.
Next Monday we will be treated to an hour-long episode titled “Viewers' Top Moments,” and the following Monday there will be two half hour episodes, “Gymnastics & Basketball” and “Never Before Seen.”
So it appears that this “Jon & Kate” saga may truly be a “Never Ending Story,” at least as long as the ratings hold up.
Boy was I wrong. Unlike even some vampires (i.e. Godric on “True Blood”), this is a show that won't die. Desperate for ratings, I guess that TLC plans on squeezing every little drop of blood out of the Gosselin family. (And how ironic is it that “TLC” actually stands for “The Learning Channel?”)
So last night we were treated to another one hour interview with Kate; this time the interview was conducted by Natalie Morales of NBC News, supposedly to give the interview more credibility. Of course we all know that the “news” today is more fluff than substance. And full of fluff is the best way to describe the softball questions (with no follow-ups) that Ms. Morales tossed Kate's way.
Somehow I just can't picture Edward R. Murrow or Mike Wallace conducting the same interview.
So once again we got to hear how Kate loves her children, would do nothing that would ever harm them, and that she originally signed up to do a reality show, not to be a “tabloid staple.” Oh, and that her and the paparazzi have a “hate-hate” relationship.
While tears welled up in Kate's eyes as she paused to answer questions about Jon's infidelities, her middle of the night meltdowns, and the positive and negative lessons she has learned (I guess it is “The Learning Channel” after all), there were moments I had difficulty hearing what she was saying, because of the jangling of her jewelry while she wiped her eyes.
I also became distracted by her contrived speech patterns that I first noticed weeks ago during an interview with Larry King.
So do I believe that Kate only cares about her children's welfare? No I don't.
Do I watch too many Jon and Kate interviews? Absolutely.
Do I regret watching all of these interviews? Absolutely.
(Excuse me while I try and contain myself for a moment.)
Okay, here's what I thought was the most interesting aspect of last night's interview, and that involves the questions that Ms. Morales asked dealing with Kate's relationship with her parents and siblings.
First Kate mentioned that she was the middle of five children, and that she was “the forgotten child.” (Hmm, could this have anything to do with her decision to get on a reality show?)
When asked about her current relationship with her parents, Kate said that it was basically an email one, and that they do not talk. But what I found most telling is the fact that this split between Kate and her family (apparently only one sister now supports her) happened NOT in the past year, but long ago.
In fact Kate admitted that her falling out with her parents occurred after the sextuplets were born, but BEFORE the television series! Kate's explanation of the problems with her parents was “that was the beginning of me realizing everyone has an opinion and sometimes those opinions aren't my opinions….and at that time I felt like it was best just to step back and take a break.”
Wow! So she basically decided to confine her relationship with her parents (and the children's grandparents) to emails because of a difference of opinion! Can you imagine if all of us did that with parents and siblings?
Back to the most important subject: Kate's future in television. First I must mention that I thought Kate looked just “mahvelous” during this interview. Obviously it's just a matter of time until her talk show premiers.
Anyway, checking my channel guide, it appears that TLC will continue to come up with new shows from already filmed footage.
Next Monday we will be treated to an hour-long episode titled “Viewers' Top Moments,” and the following Monday there will be two half hour episodes, “Gymnastics & Basketball” and “Never Before Seen.”
So it appears that this “Jon & Kate” saga may truly be a “Never Ending Story,” at least as long as the ratings hold up.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Some 'Lost' Tidbits
OK fellow “Losties,” all we have to do now is get through the holidays, and then we can start drooling in anticipation of the sixth and final season of “Lost.”
Since the fifth season ended last May with Juliet setting off the H Bomb, we have waited in anticipation to find out if her “ploy” worked. (As if setting off an H Bomb would ever just be a “ploy,” but to addicted “Lost” fans the move made perfect sense.)
Now over five months have passed, and I decided to conduct a little research in an effort to discover any clues about the coming season. Lo and behold, I found a recent interview with “Lost” executive producer Damon Lindelof, in which he revealed a few tidbits that I thought it important to pass on to you guys.
Moreover, at a Q and A at the recent Comic.Con, Lindelof and fellow exec producer Carlton Cuse also revealed some additional facts related to the coming season
But before passing on these reveals, I first have to relate a fascinating “Lost” –“True Blood” factoid that my research uncovered. And that is that Carrie Preston, who played Sookie’s friend and fellow Merlot’s waitress, Arlene Fowler, is married in real life to Michael Emerson, who plays my favorite character Benjamin Linus on “Lost.” But what is even more interesting is the fact that Carrie also appeared on “Lost,” as Ben’s mother, Emily, who in a flashback died shortly after giving birth to baby Ben!
How about that?
Anyway, here’s what I discovered:
* ABC has yet to announce when season six will begin. But Lindelof said that it would have to be in mid-January, as there will be 16 episodes that must conclude during the May sweeps. They are filming a total of 18 hours, as the premiere and final episode will both be two hours in length.
* This season will definitely be the end of the “Lost” saga. There will be no movie, spin off show, or reunion show. The “Lost” story will be concluded this May and Lindelof assures everyone that all the questions that people have about the show will be answered.
* When asked if the show’s ending is what they originally planned, Lindelof replied “Yes, the actual ending ending is exactly the same as we'd always planned on it being, except we didn't know if we were going to get there after two seasons, four seasons or after six seasons, so the road to the ending has had to change significantly.”
* He was reluctant to answer questions about specific characters, but he did say that pilot Frank Lapidus will be a main character this season.
* At Comic.Con, Lindelof and Cuse assured questioners that both Juliet and Daniel Faraday will “appear” in season six. Of course that doesn’t mean that they will be alive in the present; then again, when or where the “present” is on “Lost” are not simple questions.
* They added that the mysterious Richard Alpert’s back story will be revealed.
* Very interestingly, the producers said that the Dharma Initiative will NOT be the focus of this season. This must indicate that the H Bomb did destroy the Dharmas…I guess.
* Lindelof mentioned that certain external circumstances beyond the producers’ control have played a role in some plot developments. He cited as examples the fact that Walt’s character’s role had to be limited because the child actor playing him was growing so fast. And that Mr. Eko had to be written out of the show because the actor playing him did not feel at home in Hawaii.
* One character who according to Lindelof has played a “significant role” on the show but was not a series regular will not be in season six because he or she just did not want to return.
* As for the numbers (4, 8, 15, 16, 23, 42) that I am sure many of us have played in various lotteries, Lindelof said that in the final season they “would be enormously remiss if we were to not evaluate the numbers and their significance.
Well, that’s about all the dirt I could dig up. Now we just have to “fast forward” ourselves past Thanksgiving, Xmas, and New Years, so we can catch the final “Lost” season.
I can hardly wait.
Since the fifth season ended last May with Juliet setting off the H Bomb, we have waited in anticipation to find out if her “ploy” worked. (As if setting off an H Bomb would ever just be a “ploy,” but to addicted “Lost” fans the move made perfect sense.)
Now over five months have passed, and I decided to conduct a little research in an effort to discover any clues about the coming season. Lo and behold, I found a recent interview with “Lost” executive producer Damon Lindelof, in which he revealed a few tidbits that I thought it important to pass on to you guys.
Moreover, at a Q and A at the recent Comic.Con, Lindelof and fellow exec producer Carlton Cuse also revealed some additional facts related to the coming season
But before passing on these reveals, I first have to relate a fascinating “Lost” –“True Blood” factoid that my research uncovered. And that is that Carrie Preston, who played Sookie’s friend and fellow Merlot’s waitress, Arlene Fowler, is married in real life to Michael Emerson, who plays my favorite character Benjamin Linus on “Lost.” But what is even more interesting is the fact that Carrie also appeared on “Lost,” as Ben’s mother, Emily, who in a flashback died shortly after giving birth to baby Ben!
How about that?
Anyway, here’s what I discovered:
* ABC has yet to announce when season six will begin. But Lindelof said that it would have to be in mid-January, as there will be 16 episodes that must conclude during the May sweeps. They are filming a total of 18 hours, as the premiere and final episode will both be two hours in length.
* This season will definitely be the end of the “Lost” saga. There will be no movie, spin off show, or reunion show. The “Lost” story will be concluded this May and Lindelof assures everyone that all the questions that people have about the show will be answered.
* When asked if the show’s ending is what they originally planned, Lindelof replied “Yes, the actual ending ending is exactly the same as we'd always planned on it being, except we didn't know if we were going to get there after two seasons, four seasons or after six seasons, so the road to the ending has had to change significantly.”
* He was reluctant to answer questions about specific characters, but he did say that pilot Frank Lapidus will be a main character this season.
* At Comic.Con, Lindelof and Cuse assured questioners that both Juliet and Daniel Faraday will “appear” in season six. Of course that doesn’t mean that they will be alive in the present; then again, when or where the “present” is on “Lost” are not simple questions.
* They added that the mysterious Richard Alpert’s back story will be revealed.
* Very interestingly, the producers said that the Dharma Initiative will NOT be the focus of this season. This must indicate that the H Bomb did destroy the Dharmas…I guess.
* Lindelof mentioned that certain external circumstances beyond the producers’ control have played a role in some plot developments. He cited as examples the fact that Walt’s character’s role had to be limited because the child actor playing him was growing so fast. And that Mr. Eko had to be written out of the show because the actor playing him did not feel at home in Hawaii.
* One character who according to Lindelof has played a “significant role” on the show but was not a series regular will not be in season six because he or she just did not want to return.
* As for the numbers (4, 8, 15, 16, 23, 42) that I am sure many of us have played in various lotteries, Lindelof said that in the final season they “would be enormously remiss if we were to not evaluate the numbers and their significance.
Well, that’s about all the dirt I could dig up. Now we just have to “fast forward” ourselves past Thanksgiving, Xmas, and New Years, so we can catch the final “Lost” season.
I can hardly wait.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Kate's Interview: A Farewell, An Interview, or Both?
Last night Kate Gosselin sat by herself on a “love seat” (hmmm) and answered “any and all reasonable questions” from viewers.
In all probability the one hour TLC “special,” was actually the final episode of the five season run of “Jon & Kate Plus 8.” Ironically for a show that has received as much hype and attention as any reality show in the history of television, the series ended “not with a bang but a whimper.”
Although there has been no official announcement from TLC execs, the planned spinoff series titled just “Kate Plus 8” will not return next week as originally scheduled, since Jon has exercised his parental rights to halt any further taping of his eight children.
For those of you who still want to watch cutesy shows about the kids visiting horse farms and petting zoos (and there aren't too many of you left), there is still a chance that the show will be continued in the future, pending the results of a breach of contract suit that TLC has filed against Jon.
But I wouldn't hold my breath, though I am sure that “Jon & Kate Plus 8” reruns will continue for years to come…as long as the ratings hold up.
In all probability last night's Kate interview was really an audition by Kate for her own talk show. And Kate somewhat confirmed that prospect. When asked about her future career plans, since she certainly needs a large income stream to support her eight kids and the upkeep for their million dollar estate, Kate played down any possible return to her former nursing career.
I guess not too many single nurses can afford the staff it takes to run an estate, let alone to feed eight growing children.
So Kate plans to remain in the celebrity spotlight, though throughout the show she certain did not hide her disdain for the paparazzi and the gossip magazines and television shows that hire them.
No, Kate wants to continue in television, stating "I've done enough years on TV that I feel like it's a normal, comfortable, natural place to be." Of course TLC is not about to lose the person who almost single handedly put the channel on the map.
And supposedly a Kate Gosselin talk show is well in the works. Look out Ellen and Oprah!
But like many television “stars,” Kate also stated that she would like to move on to the silver screen and make movies. How about casting her in a modern day remake of Shakespeare's “Taming of the Shrew?” (Sorry Kate fans, my fingers just typed that suggestion, I could not stop them.)
Kate added that she would also like to be a voice for a cartoon character in an animated movie for her kids. How about the Sea Witch Ursula in a new version of “The Little Mermaid?” (Whoops, there go my fingers again.)
Kate answered a bunch of other questions from viewers with all the right answers. To summarize, yes the kids are doing great and are very happy. No, the taping over the years has not harmed them in any way. Yes, there is plenty of money already put away for the children's education needs. Yes, we still love the dogs we adopted, though we had to return them to the kennel, but we hope to get them back someday. Yes, I like my current hairstyle, but (big announcement!) I am considering making some changes. I can't help it; I have developed an addiction to wearing high heels. Yes, I do flip out at times, but what mother of five or more children doesn't?
And yes, a year ago when she and Jon and the kids got a free trip to Hawaii to renew their wedding vows, it wasn't just a stunt, as they meant every word of the vows, and anyway the kids really enjoyed the trip.
Finally, her answer to the question about ever getting married again was especially poignant and demonstrated Kate's ability to double talk.
"To be honest, I don't know," she said when asked by a viewer. "I really don't want to be married again, but I don't want to be alone. The alone-ness is really alone."
I think she will make a fine actress.
It should be noted that there were no viewers' questions about Jon and the all the scandals that have been reported over the past year, or basically since they “meaningfully” renewed their wedding vows.
After all such questions were probably not deemed “reasonable.”
In all probability the one hour TLC “special,” was actually the final episode of the five season run of “Jon & Kate Plus 8.” Ironically for a show that has received as much hype and attention as any reality show in the history of television, the series ended “not with a bang but a whimper.”
Although there has been no official announcement from TLC execs, the planned spinoff series titled just “Kate Plus 8” will not return next week as originally scheduled, since Jon has exercised his parental rights to halt any further taping of his eight children.
For those of you who still want to watch cutesy shows about the kids visiting horse farms and petting zoos (and there aren't too many of you left), there is still a chance that the show will be continued in the future, pending the results of a breach of contract suit that TLC has filed against Jon.
But I wouldn't hold my breath, though I am sure that “Jon & Kate Plus 8” reruns will continue for years to come…as long as the ratings hold up.
In all probability last night's Kate interview was really an audition by Kate for her own talk show. And Kate somewhat confirmed that prospect. When asked about her future career plans, since she certainly needs a large income stream to support her eight kids and the upkeep for their million dollar estate, Kate played down any possible return to her former nursing career.
I guess not too many single nurses can afford the staff it takes to run an estate, let alone to feed eight growing children.
So Kate plans to remain in the celebrity spotlight, though throughout the show she certain did not hide her disdain for the paparazzi and the gossip magazines and television shows that hire them.
No, Kate wants to continue in television, stating "I've done enough years on TV that I feel like it's a normal, comfortable, natural place to be." Of course TLC is not about to lose the person who almost single handedly put the channel on the map.
And supposedly a Kate Gosselin talk show is well in the works. Look out Ellen and Oprah!
But like many television “stars,” Kate also stated that she would like to move on to the silver screen and make movies. How about casting her in a modern day remake of Shakespeare's “Taming of the Shrew?” (Sorry Kate fans, my fingers just typed that suggestion, I could not stop them.)
Kate added that she would also like to be a voice for a cartoon character in an animated movie for her kids. How about the Sea Witch Ursula in a new version of “The Little Mermaid?” (Whoops, there go my fingers again.)
Kate answered a bunch of other questions from viewers with all the right answers. To summarize, yes the kids are doing great and are very happy. No, the taping over the years has not harmed them in any way. Yes, there is plenty of money already put away for the children's education needs. Yes, we still love the dogs we adopted, though we had to return them to the kennel, but we hope to get them back someday. Yes, I like my current hairstyle, but (big announcement!) I am considering making some changes. I can't help it; I have developed an addiction to wearing high heels. Yes, I do flip out at times, but what mother of five or more children doesn't?
And yes, a year ago when she and Jon and the kids got a free trip to Hawaii to renew their wedding vows, it wasn't just a stunt, as they meant every word of the vows, and anyway the kids really enjoyed the trip.
Finally, her answer to the question about ever getting married again was especially poignant and demonstrated Kate's ability to double talk.
"To be honest, I don't know," she said when asked by a viewer. "I really don't want to be married again, but I don't want to be alone. The alone-ness is really alone."
I think she will make a fine actress.
It should be noted that there were no viewers' questions about Jon and the all the scandals that have been reported over the past year, or basically since they “meaningfully” renewed their wedding vows.
After all such questions were probably not deemed “reasonable.”
Monday, October 26, 2009
Has Larry David Become Too Obnoxious?
Well, LD, you have managed to “curb my enthusiasm” for “Curb Your Enthusiasm.”
And I feel betrayed. Earlier this year I proclaimed “Curb Your Enthusiasm” my all-time favorite sitcom, and I praised to the hilt the episode titled “The Reunion,” in which Larry got the Seinfeld cast back together for a mock reunion.
But the past three episodes, including last night's “The Bare Midriff,” were in combination the worse sequence of shows in “Curb's” seven year run.
Dare I say that “Curb” has “jumped the shark?”
I hope not, because I really love the show and the characters. And the concept of the upcoming mock Seinfeld reunion is still a wonderful one. The scenes in last night's episode in which Larry is verbally sparring with Jerry Seinfeld were funny and made a fan such as I wonder how brilliant the two of them must have been when putting together the original “Seinfeld” series. It was almost like pulling back the curtain so the rest of us could take a peek to see how Larry and Jerry worked their magic during the 90s.
And I like the building plot twist with ex-wife Cheryl being told by Larry that she has the part of George's ex-wife in the Seinfeld reunion, although Larry told Jerry she is just auditioning for the part. It resulted in some of Larry's best verbal scuffling.
BUT (and you know what it means when the word “but” is capitalized), almost every plot twist and turn in the past three episodes that has nothing to do with the Seinfeld reunion has seemed like filler, just tossed into the script without any creative thinking.
Now Larry has always come across as an “a-hole,” making verbal mountains out of mole hills. His overreacting to the commonplace nuisances of life (and people's overreactions to his reactions) has always formed the meat and potatoes of the humor of “Curb.”
Incidents like not having enough change to get out of a parking lot or not want to give candy to teen age girls not wearing Halloween costumes, or being annoyed when he discovers that a friend lied when claiming his ancestor invented the Cobb salad were hysterical twists on the absurdities of life that confront us all.
How many times have you found yourself in similar annoying situations and remarked “this is like a Larry David scene?” I have countless times. And while Larry's reactions often seemed a bit over the top, they were still reactions to which I could easily relate. Often I have wished that I had Larry's nerve to tell off an obnoxiously pushy salesperson or to complain out loud when I show up at a doctor's office on time and am kept waiting for over an hour.
But in the past several episodes (in the non-Seinfeld scenes) Larry's obnoxiousness has gone too far, even by his standards. Interrupting Jeff and Susie Greene's daughter Sammy who was singing at the Danson's anniversary party, or also interrupting the opera singer at the Italian restaurant, or insisting that his doctor give Larry his home number, or pushing a woman in a wheelchair into a closet, or wrestling Rosie O'Donnell to the floor in a fight over a check, or urinating so hard that the backsplash landed on a picture of Jesus and not bothering to wipe it off.
Most importantly, such scenes were not even mildly amusing.
And being pulled over by a policeman for taking too many napkins from an Italian take out restaurant was also a plot line that was just too absurd, even for “Curb.” (Though I will admit that I laughed out loud when viewing the police lineup, the restaurateur could distinguish between men who were bald with glasses, but not between men of different races.)
But overall, Larry's antics have not been those of the loveable curmudgeon of previous seasons. Perhaps he is intentionally trying to point out that without wife Cheryl to keep him in check, the loveable Larry goes too far and becomes just a purely, obnoxious Larry.
I hope that's the case, and I will continue to watch the show, also hoping that the remainder of the season focuses more on the Seinfeld reunion than the inane goings on of the past three episodes.
After all, the brilliance of the previous six seasons earns Larry my continued faithful viewing. So Cheryl, please take him back, as he is just too much of an “a-hole” without you.
And I feel betrayed. Earlier this year I proclaimed “Curb Your Enthusiasm” my all-time favorite sitcom, and I praised to the hilt the episode titled “The Reunion,” in which Larry got the Seinfeld cast back together for a mock reunion.
But the past three episodes, including last night's “The Bare Midriff,” were in combination the worse sequence of shows in “Curb's” seven year run.
Dare I say that “Curb” has “jumped the shark?”
I hope not, because I really love the show and the characters. And the concept of the upcoming mock Seinfeld reunion is still a wonderful one. The scenes in last night's episode in which Larry is verbally sparring with Jerry Seinfeld were funny and made a fan such as I wonder how brilliant the two of them must have been when putting together the original “Seinfeld” series. It was almost like pulling back the curtain so the rest of us could take a peek to see how Larry and Jerry worked their magic during the 90s.
And I like the building plot twist with ex-wife Cheryl being told by Larry that she has the part of George's ex-wife in the Seinfeld reunion, although Larry told Jerry she is just auditioning for the part. It resulted in some of Larry's best verbal scuffling.
BUT (and you know what it means when the word “but” is capitalized), almost every plot twist and turn in the past three episodes that has nothing to do with the Seinfeld reunion has seemed like filler, just tossed into the script without any creative thinking.
Now Larry has always come across as an “a-hole,” making verbal mountains out of mole hills. His overreacting to the commonplace nuisances of life (and people's overreactions to his reactions) has always formed the meat and potatoes of the humor of “Curb.”
Incidents like not having enough change to get out of a parking lot or not want to give candy to teen age girls not wearing Halloween costumes, or being annoyed when he discovers that a friend lied when claiming his ancestor invented the Cobb salad were hysterical twists on the absurdities of life that confront us all.
How many times have you found yourself in similar annoying situations and remarked “this is like a Larry David scene?” I have countless times. And while Larry's reactions often seemed a bit over the top, they were still reactions to which I could easily relate. Often I have wished that I had Larry's nerve to tell off an obnoxiously pushy salesperson or to complain out loud when I show up at a doctor's office on time and am kept waiting for over an hour.
But in the past several episodes (in the non-Seinfeld scenes) Larry's obnoxiousness has gone too far, even by his standards. Interrupting Jeff and Susie Greene's daughter Sammy who was singing at the Danson's anniversary party, or also interrupting the opera singer at the Italian restaurant, or insisting that his doctor give Larry his home number, or pushing a woman in a wheelchair into a closet, or wrestling Rosie O'Donnell to the floor in a fight over a check, or urinating so hard that the backsplash landed on a picture of Jesus and not bothering to wipe it off.
Most importantly, such scenes were not even mildly amusing.
And being pulled over by a policeman for taking too many napkins from an Italian take out restaurant was also a plot line that was just too absurd, even for “Curb.” (Though I will admit that I laughed out loud when viewing the police lineup, the restaurateur could distinguish between men who were bald with glasses, but not between men of different races.)
But overall, Larry's antics have not been those of the loveable curmudgeon of previous seasons. Perhaps he is intentionally trying to point out that without wife Cheryl to keep him in check, the loveable Larry goes too far and becomes just a purely, obnoxious Larry.
I hope that's the case, and I will continue to watch the show, also hoping that the remainder of the season focuses more on the Seinfeld reunion than the inane goings on of the past three episodes.
After all, the brilliance of the previous six seasons earns Larry my continued faithful viewing. So Cheryl, please take him back, as he is just too much of an “a-hole” without you.
Friday, October 23, 2009
Hey Jim, the Honeymoon is Over!
I certainly think Pam overreacted to the news that Michael is dating her mother. (If you have no idea what I am referring to, you obviously don't watch “The Office,” so feel free to skip this article altogether.)
But what I enjoyed most about the episode titled “The Lover” was poor Jim's reactions to the freaked out Pam. Now Jim's mugging to the mockumentary camera has always been one of the show's highlights over the years.
Last night, however, his reaction shots alone were probably worthy of an Emmy nomination.
Moreover, Jim learned during this episode the one commandment that any married man who wants to stay married must learn. (And it makes no difference whether you just returned from your honeymoon or you have been married for decades.)
The commandment is a simple one, but it should be engraved on a tablet and presented to every groom within seconds after the priest, rabbi, justice of the peace or ship's captain says “I now pronounce you man and wife.” It reads as follows:
“WHEN YOUR WIFE MAKES A STATEMENT USING A CERTAIN ANGST-FILLED TONE, ALWAYS IMMEDIATELY AGREE WITH HER!”
When Pam cried out during a staff meeting “Welcome to my personal Hell…,” I could not help but recall another statement that elicited a similar bone-chilling reaction: Tony Montana's “Say hello to my little friend” in the movie “Scarface.”
(Speaking of movie references, I hope everyone realized that Pam and Jim's cutesy “frank and beans” was an homage to the scene in “Something About Mary,” when Ben Stiller gets his “frank and beans” caught in his zipper.)
Anyway, the intensity of the Pam and Jim standoff reached an unmatched level for this usually light-hearted and funny sitcom. There have been many awkward and uncomfortable moments over the years (such as when poor Michael had to be escorted out of the office by the security guard after his resignation last season), but none matched the seat-squirming emotions generated by last night's episode.
And there was poor Jim, caught in the middle, perhaps analogous to Ben's “frank and beans.”
In a scene which most husbands could easily relate to, Jim tried to cheer Pam up by bringing her a cup of hot chocolate and relating his plan to gain revenge on Dwight for the bugged duck (I mean mallard). Yet his efforts were thwarted by a hostile “You need to be more upsets about this, she's your mother now too” comeback from the usually mild-mannered Pam.
And later his mild greeting of “Hey,” to his wife as she stormed out of the break room after sparring with Michael was met with a “shove it” comment.
But Jim is smart and learned quickly, so when Pam later says “Maybe I'm, overreacting,” he first mumbles “Yep, maybe.” But when Pam immediately responds “But I don't think I am,” Jim quickly agrees, asserting “You're not, nope, nope.”
So welcome to marriage Jim, and enjoy the ride.
But what I enjoyed most about the episode titled “The Lover” was poor Jim's reactions to the freaked out Pam. Now Jim's mugging to the mockumentary camera has always been one of the show's highlights over the years.
Last night, however, his reaction shots alone were probably worthy of an Emmy nomination.
Moreover, Jim learned during this episode the one commandment that any married man who wants to stay married must learn. (And it makes no difference whether you just returned from your honeymoon or you have been married for decades.)
The commandment is a simple one, but it should be engraved on a tablet and presented to every groom within seconds after the priest, rabbi, justice of the peace or ship's captain says “I now pronounce you man and wife.” It reads as follows:
“WHEN YOUR WIFE MAKES A STATEMENT USING A CERTAIN ANGST-FILLED TONE, ALWAYS IMMEDIATELY AGREE WITH HER!”
When Pam cried out during a staff meeting “Welcome to my personal Hell…,” I could not help but recall another statement that elicited a similar bone-chilling reaction: Tony Montana's “Say hello to my little friend” in the movie “Scarface.”
(Speaking of movie references, I hope everyone realized that Pam and Jim's cutesy “frank and beans” was an homage to the scene in “Something About Mary,” when Ben Stiller gets his “frank and beans” caught in his zipper.)
Anyway, the intensity of the Pam and Jim standoff reached an unmatched level for this usually light-hearted and funny sitcom. There have been many awkward and uncomfortable moments over the years (such as when poor Michael had to be escorted out of the office by the security guard after his resignation last season), but none matched the seat-squirming emotions generated by last night's episode.
And there was poor Jim, caught in the middle, perhaps analogous to Ben's “frank and beans.”
In a scene which most husbands could easily relate to, Jim tried to cheer Pam up by bringing her a cup of hot chocolate and relating his plan to gain revenge on Dwight for the bugged duck (I mean mallard). Yet his efforts were thwarted by a hostile “You need to be more upsets about this, she's your mother now too” comeback from the usually mild-mannered Pam.
And later his mild greeting of “Hey,” to his wife as she stormed out of the break room after sparring with Michael was met with a “shove it” comment.
But Jim is smart and learned quickly, so when Pam later says “Maybe I'm, overreacting,” he first mumbles “Yep, maybe.” But when Pam immediately responds “But I don't think I am,” Jim quickly agrees, asserting “You're not, nope, nope.”
So welcome to marriage Jim, and enjoy the ride.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
What Television 'Fly Paper' Shows Do You Watch?
If you are enough of a television fan that you regularly read TV articles on seascoastonline.com, I would guess that you have probably subscribed to a package on your cable system that includes anywhere from 50 to 300 channels.
Unfortunately, all too often television writers and reviewers only focus on programs aired on the four large broadcast networks or on premium channels such as HBO and Showtime. But there are many interesting shows on the other 294 channels that people tend to watch mainly before or after “prime time.”
Let’s face it. Often late at night we find ourselves half asleep on our sofa or favorite easy chair, remote in hand, channel surfing, and certain programs stop us dead in our tracks. I call these programs “fly paper” shows, ones we inevitably pause on and wind up viewing.
So I thought I would list some of my favorite “fly paper” programs that I have stumbled upon, usually while fighting to keep my eyes open:
1. “Diners, Drive-ins and Dives” on The Food Network – What better show to light on late at night when your stomach is growling? Watching host Guy Fieri chow down on a burger covered with onions, avocado, bacon, and melted cheddar cheese or a hot dog smothered with half a dozen toppings always makes my mouth water and sends me racing to the fridge for a late night snack.
2. “Bizarre Foods with Andrew Zimmern” on The Travel Channel – Speaking of food, watching Andrew travel all over the world eating gross-looking foods such as jellied eels, lemon ants, fermented meat, or spiced grubs does not make my mouth water, but I can’t stop myself from watching. It’s sort of like rubber necking at a bloody accident scene.
3. “Histories Mysteries” on The History Channel – When channel surfing, can one ever get enough of shows titled “The Death of Marilyn Monroe,” “The Hunt for Jack the Ripper,” “Where is Jimmy Hoffa?” or “Area 51: Beyond Top Secret?” For that matter any show on any channel that explores the assassinations of JFK or even RFK will always stop me in my tracks.
4. “Comedy Central Roasts” – Although the jokes are often lame, if I see that Pamela Anderson, William Shatner, Joan Rivers, or even Flavor Flav are being roasted, I feel compelled to stop and watch for at least a set or two, just to see the “roastees” reactions to being verbally skewered.
5. “Little House on the Prairie” reruns on the Hallmark Channel – I used to make fun of my wife who has always acclaimed her love of this show. But every once in a while I get caught up watching an episode, and I have to marvel at how well-written and interesting the travails of the Ingalls family can be, even though some of their episodes inevitably cause me to tear up.
6. “How Will Earth End” on the National Geographic Channel – This fascinating series which depicts exactly what the title says always catches my eye, along with a companion show “If Humans Disappear.” And I love the fact that on the NGC’s web site there is a running countdown of the number of days left until December 21, 2012, which is the date of the Mayan Doomsday Prophecy. (By the way, that is only 1,156 days from today.)
7. “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?” reruns on The Game Show Network – I am talking about the original show with Regis Philbin hosting. I always have to bring my channel surfing to a screeching halt just to see how far the current contestant gets. And okay, I admit it I also do the same when I see a rerun of the totally insipid show “Deal or No Deal,” just to see how stupid some of the greedy contestants can be. I just love it when a hick from Oklahoma proclaims to absolutely know that he has selected the $1 million briefcase and winds up winning $5!
8. “Trauma: Life in the ER” on the Discovery Health Channel – This is another show that my wife turned me on to. When a show always starts off with the disclaimer "Due to the graphic nature of this program, viewer discretion is advised," how can you not watch it for at least 10-15 minutes, if only to find out how the surgeons would save a man who fell out of a window and was impaled on an iron rod sticking through his chest? Yes, the man did live, by the way.
9. Old Movies – There are certain movies that I have seen countless times that when channel surfing I have to stop and watch. But that is the subject of another article. I will admit though, if I come across “Titanic,” and the action is taking place AFTER the ship has hit the iceberg, I have to continue watching.
Well, those are just stop of my favorite “fly paper shows.” What are yours? Send any suggestions to pennerst@hotmail.com.
Unfortunately, all too often television writers and reviewers only focus on programs aired on the four large broadcast networks or on premium channels such as HBO and Showtime. But there are many interesting shows on the other 294 channels that people tend to watch mainly before or after “prime time.”
Let’s face it. Often late at night we find ourselves half asleep on our sofa or favorite easy chair, remote in hand, channel surfing, and certain programs stop us dead in our tracks. I call these programs “fly paper” shows, ones we inevitably pause on and wind up viewing.
So I thought I would list some of my favorite “fly paper” programs that I have stumbled upon, usually while fighting to keep my eyes open:
1. “Diners, Drive-ins and Dives” on The Food Network – What better show to light on late at night when your stomach is growling? Watching host Guy Fieri chow down on a burger covered with onions, avocado, bacon, and melted cheddar cheese or a hot dog smothered with half a dozen toppings always makes my mouth water and sends me racing to the fridge for a late night snack.
2. “Bizarre Foods with Andrew Zimmern” on The Travel Channel – Speaking of food, watching Andrew travel all over the world eating gross-looking foods such as jellied eels, lemon ants, fermented meat, or spiced grubs does not make my mouth water, but I can’t stop myself from watching. It’s sort of like rubber necking at a bloody accident scene.
3. “Histories Mysteries” on The History Channel – When channel surfing, can one ever get enough of shows titled “The Death of Marilyn Monroe,” “The Hunt for Jack the Ripper,” “Where is Jimmy Hoffa?” or “Area 51: Beyond Top Secret?” For that matter any show on any channel that explores the assassinations of JFK or even RFK will always stop me in my tracks.
4. “Comedy Central Roasts” – Although the jokes are often lame, if I see that Pamela Anderson, William Shatner, Joan Rivers, or even Flavor Flav are being roasted, I feel compelled to stop and watch for at least a set or two, just to see the “roastees” reactions to being verbally skewered.
5. “Little House on the Prairie” reruns on the Hallmark Channel – I used to make fun of my wife who has always acclaimed her love of this show. But every once in a while I get caught up watching an episode, and I have to marvel at how well-written and interesting the travails of the Ingalls family can be, even though some of their episodes inevitably cause me to tear up.
6. “How Will Earth End” on the National Geographic Channel – This fascinating series which depicts exactly what the title says always catches my eye, along with a companion show “If Humans Disappear.” And I love the fact that on the NGC’s web site there is a running countdown of the number of days left until December 21, 2012, which is the date of the Mayan Doomsday Prophecy. (By the way, that is only 1,156 days from today.)
7. “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?” reruns on The Game Show Network – I am talking about the original show with Regis Philbin hosting. I always have to bring my channel surfing to a screeching halt just to see how far the current contestant gets. And okay, I admit it I also do the same when I see a rerun of the totally insipid show “Deal or No Deal,” just to see how stupid some of the greedy contestants can be. I just love it when a hick from Oklahoma proclaims to absolutely know that he has selected the $1 million briefcase and winds up winning $5!
8. “Trauma: Life in the ER” on the Discovery Health Channel – This is another show that my wife turned me on to. When a show always starts off with the disclaimer "Due to the graphic nature of this program, viewer discretion is advised," how can you not watch it for at least 10-15 minutes, if only to find out how the surgeons would save a man who fell out of a window and was impaled on an iron rod sticking through his chest? Yes, the man did live, by the way.
9. Old Movies – There are certain movies that I have seen countless times that when channel surfing I have to stop and watch. But that is the subject of another article. I will admit though, if I come across “Titanic,” and the action is taking place AFTER the ship has hit the iceberg, I have to continue watching.
Well, those are just stop of my favorite “fly paper shows.” What are yours? Send any suggestions to pennerst@hotmail.com.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
An Important Jon & Kate Update!
I decided that it was time to catch up on the comings and goings of my favorite family, the Gosselins. So here’s an update on the latest Jon and Kate news.
On Monday’s episode of “Jon & Kate Plus 8,” Kate took the three little girls on a special trip to Florida. First they visited Butterfly World, where the kids got to see and play with hundreds of pretty butterflies.
Earlier this month Kate went on the “Today” show and announced that Jon had taken $230,000 out of their joint bank account, leaving her with only $1,000 to pay their bills.
At Butterfly World, the girls were befriended by one particular butterfly that they decided to name Black Velvet. Alexis was disappointed that they could not bring it home.
Jon denied removing a large sum of money from their bank account, but a judge ruled in court last week that he must return $180,000 to the account by October 26. The same judge also ordered that Kate must account for the $55,000 in bills that she supposedly has paid out.
Back at their home, Jon and the three boys bought a toy water-propelled bottle rocket, and after a few problems assembling it, managed to successfully shoot the rocket far into the sky many times.
Back in court the judge also ruled that Kate must respond to Jon’s allegations that she had misappropriated family-earmarked money from her book sales, and that she must do so by that same October 26 date.
Meanwhile it turns out that Butterfly World also has a bird sanctuary for abandoned macaws that have outlived their owners. While feeding these colorful birds Kate was bitten by one, but she just laughed it off. Later she joked that she wanted to pose holding eight birds instead of three, so she could “feel complete.”
Now remember that totally coincidentally, after TLC had bounced Jon from the show and renamed it “Kate Plus 8,” (scheduled to air beginning November 2), Jon had an epiphany and asserted his right to ban TLC’s camera crew from filming his kids.
Since the rocket launches were so successful, Jon led the boys and the older twin girls in a frolicking water balloon fight that everyone enjoyed.
TLC recently announced that they are going to sue Jon for breach of contract in response to his efforts to block any further taping of his family.
Kate and the girls visited the Bug Zoo, which the kids loved, playing with all kinds of creepy crawlers, while poor Kate was completely grossed out, but since this is the new and improved Kate, she laughed as she escaped through the fire exit.
TLC has further announced that they have suspended the “Kate Plus 8” show concept, and for now no further new shows involving the Gosselin family are planned.
In a very touching scene, Jon taught his boys how to swing a baseball bat while reminiscing in a “Field of Dreams” way about learning to play baseball from his father. And it turns out that one of the twins, Cara, has a real aptitude for hitting a baseball.
Kate has said that the kids have all been crying since the film crews have left, and she has pointed out that the Gosselins rely on income from the television show, which now has been canceled.
The girls and Kate went on a hot air balloon ride, or as one of the girls cutely announced, they were “Going in an air hot, air hot balloon.” Kate had trouble getting into the balloon because she was wearing high heels and the heat from the hot air made everyone sweat. But they drank lots of water and the view of the Florida countryside from the balloon was amazing, so the venture was worth it.
Finally, word is out that when a clip of Jon and Kate was shown at the Reality TV version of the Emmys, the audience actually booed poor Jon and Kate.
I can’t imagine why.
On Monday’s episode of “Jon & Kate Plus 8,” Kate took the three little girls on a special trip to Florida. First they visited Butterfly World, where the kids got to see and play with hundreds of pretty butterflies.
Earlier this month Kate went on the “Today” show and announced that Jon had taken $230,000 out of their joint bank account, leaving her with only $1,000 to pay their bills.
At Butterfly World, the girls were befriended by one particular butterfly that they decided to name Black Velvet. Alexis was disappointed that they could not bring it home.
Jon denied removing a large sum of money from their bank account, but a judge ruled in court last week that he must return $180,000 to the account by October 26. The same judge also ordered that Kate must account for the $55,000 in bills that she supposedly has paid out.
Back at their home, Jon and the three boys bought a toy water-propelled bottle rocket, and after a few problems assembling it, managed to successfully shoot the rocket far into the sky many times.
Back in court the judge also ruled that Kate must respond to Jon’s allegations that she had misappropriated family-earmarked money from her book sales, and that she must do so by that same October 26 date.
Meanwhile it turns out that Butterfly World also has a bird sanctuary for abandoned macaws that have outlived their owners. While feeding these colorful birds Kate was bitten by one, but she just laughed it off. Later she joked that she wanted to pose holding eight birds instead of three, so she could “feel complete.”
Now remember that totally coincidentally, after TLC had bounced Jon from the show and renamed it “Kate Plus 8,” (scheduled to air beginning November 2), Jon had an epiphany and asserted his right to ban TLC’s camera crew from filming his kids.
Since the rocket launches were so successful, Jon led the boys and the older twin girls in a frolicking water balloon fight that everyone enjoyed.
TLC recently announced that they are going to sue Jon for breach of contract in response to his efforts to block any further taping of his family.
Kate and the girls visited the Bug Zoo, which the kids loved, playing with all kinds of creepy crawlers, while poor Kate was completely grossed out, but since this is the new and improved Kate, she laughed as she escaped through the fire exit.
TLC has further announced that they have suspended the “Kate Plus 8” show concept, and for now no further new shows involving the Gosselin family are planned.
In a very touching scene, Jon taught his boys how to swing a baseball bat while reminiscing in a “Field of Dreams” way about learning to play baseball from his father. And it turns out that one of the twins, Cara, has a real aptitude for hitting a baseball.
Kate has said that the kids have all been crying since the film crews have left, and she has pointed out that the Gosselins rely on income from the television show, which now has been canceled.
The girls and Kate went on a hot air balloon ride, or as one of the girls cutely announced, they were “Going in an air hot, air hot balloon.” Kate had trouble getting into the balloon because she was wearing high heels and the heat from the hot air made everyone sweat. But they drank lots of water and the view of the Florida countryside from the balloon was amazing, so the venture was worth it.
Finally, word is out that when a clip of Jon and Kate was shown at the Reality TV version of the Emmys, the audience actually booed poor Jon and Kate.
I can’t imagine why.
Friday, October 9, 2009
Wacky YouTube Wedding Video Crashes Jim & Pam's 'Office' Nuptials
You just knew the writers of “The Office” would have to come up with something special for Jim and Pam's wedding. But their job was made so much easier by the viral video wacky wedding dance on YouTube that swept through the Internet this summer.
Little did Kevin Heinz and Jill Peterson of St. Paul, Minnesota know when they decided to dance a version of the Funky Chicken down the aisle to the tune of Chris Brown's “Forever” on June 20, that they would start a national trend that would eventually be copied by the Beesly-Halpert wedding party.
To date their video has had over 26,890,000 hits on YouTube, and I suspect that after last night's “The Office” episode that number could double over the next week.
So for those of you who watched the episode and had no idea what was happening when the “Office” cast went crazy, now you know. And that also explains what Jim meant when he said he bought the Maid of the Mist boat tickets as Plan C the day he saw the YouTube video. Moreover, the editing of their real wedding on the boat (with Niagara Falls in the background) with the rest of the cast frolicking down the aisle was brilliant!
Ironically it was not Michael who “ruined” the wedding, which of course is what everyone thought would happen.
As for the first 50 minutes of the episode titled “Niagara,” there was a great deal of standard “Office” hijinks that was truly hysterical. Yet much of it did not begin until after the beginning of Jim's toast at the rehearsal dinner that must have touched everyone who for years has followed Jim and Pam's rocky road to matrimony.
Jim begun the toast by saying "Four years ago, I was just a guy, who had a crush on a girl, who had a boyfriend. And I had to do the hardest thing I've ever had to do, which was just to wait."
Unfortunately, with Michael's help, the rest of the toast let the proverbial cat out of the bag in terms of Pam's pregnancy and set off a series of typical “Office” antics that culminated with poor Andy Bernard being taken to the hospital by Pam (the only non-drunk person who could drive) with a torn scrotum.
I won't bother relating the rest of the funny things that happened. All I can say is that if you are a fan of the series I am sure you caught the show yourself. And if you DVR'd it, I don't want to list every incident that occurred, as it would spoil your fun.
For all you “True Blood” fans, I must point out that Pam's sister Penny was played by none other than Anna Camp, who portrayed Sarah Newlin, (anyone else notice the similarity in her name to Sarah Palin?), the wife of Steve Newlin, the pastor of the Fellowship of the Sun Church! Obviously Anna specializes in outlandish church scenes.
If you are not a fan of “The Office,” at least check out the popular wacky wedding video which inspired this episode. I am sure that it is just a matter of minutes or perhaps days that “The Office” version will appear on the Internet, if not on YouTube, then on MSNBC.com.
Meanwhile I have to go practice my own wacky wedding dance moves so I can someday embarrass my children at their weddings!
Little did Kevin Heinz and Jill Peterson of St. Paul, Minnesota know when they decided to dance a version of the Funky Chicken down the aisle to the tune of Chris Brown's “Forever” on June 20, that they would start a national trend that would eventually be copied by the Beesly-Halpert wedding party.
To date their video has had over 26,890,000 hits on YouTube, and I suspect that after last night's “The Office” episode that number could double over the next week.
So for those of you who watched the episode and had no idea what was happening when the “Office” cast went crazy, now you know. And that also explains what Jim meant when he said he bought the Maid of the Mist boat tickets as Plan C the day he saw the YouTube video. Moreover, the editing of their real wedding on the boat (with Niagara Falls in the background) with the rest of the cast frolicking down the aisle was brilliant!
Ironically it was not Michael who “ruined” the wedding, which of course is what everyone thought would happen.
As for the first 50 minutes of the episode titled “Niagara,” there was a great deal of standard “Office” hijinks that was truly hysterical. Yet much of it did not begin until after the beginning of Jim's toast at the rehearsal dinner that must have touched everyone who for years has followed Jim and Pam's rocky road to matrimony.
Jim begun the toast by saying "Four years ago, I was just a guy, who had a crush on a girl, who had a boyfriend. And I had to do the hardest thing I've ever had to do, which was just to wait."
Unfortunately, with Michael's help, the rest of the toast let the proverbial cat out of the bag in terms of Pam's pregnancy and set off a series of typical “Office” antics that culminated with poor Andy Bernard being taken to the hospital by Pam (the only non-drunk person who could drive) with a torn scrotum.
I won't bother relating the rest of the funny things that happened. All I can say is that if you are a fan of the series I am sure you caught the show yourself. And if you DVR'd it, I don't want to list every incident that occurred, as it would spoil your fun.
For all you “True Blood” fans, I must point out that Pam's sister Penny was played by none other than Anna Camp, who portrayed Sarah Newlin, (anyone else notice the similarity in her name to Sarah Palin?), the wife of Steve Newlin, the pastor of the Fellowship of the Sun Church! Obviously Anna specializes in outlandish church scenes.
If you are not a fan of “The Office,” at least check out the popular wacky wedding video which inspired this episode. I am sure that it is just a matter of minutes or perhaps days that “The Office” version will appear on the Internet, if not on YouTube, then on MSNBC.com.
Meanwhile I have to go practice my own wacky wedding dance moves so I can someday embarrass my children at their weddings!
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Some Television 'New Rules' I Would Love to See
I hope HBO's Bill Maher doesn't mind, but I have some personal “New Rules” that I would like to see implemented by all television networks.
1. NEW RULE: When a cable news network interviews an elected politician concerning an issue such as health care, they MUST run a scroll below the talking head revealing how much money in campaign donations said politician received from relevant interests, such as insurance and pharmaceutical companies. Just so the viewer can figure out where the pol is really coming from.
Related Stories
2. NEW RULE: When a talk show host interviews an actor or actress from one of my favorite television shows they MUST ask in depth questions about the character the person plays, rather than letting him or her ramble on relating silly anecdotes from their personal life. I recently saw Hugh Laurie interviewed by Jay Leno, and the interview could not have been more boring without one iota of insight into the fascinating and complex Dr. House.
3. NEW RULE: On every network that airs sitcoms there MUST be at least one family where the husband is either younger or better looking than the wife. I am tired of watching portly, balding husbands married to women who in real life would never have given that guy the time of day.
4. NEW RULE: Let's ban gyrating figures hyping other shows on the same network on the bottom of the screen every time the show returns from a commercial break. While we're at it, let's eliminate the network's logo being permanently placed at the bottom right hand corner of the screen. We know what station we are watching!
5. NEW RULE: Shows scheduled to run from 9:00 to 9:30 MUST start and end precisely at those times. It is extremely irritating to DVR a show, and then later when watching it, to have the recorded version cut off a minute or two before the show actually ends!
6. NEW RULE: No airing of the exact same commercial more than once on every show. Commercials are bad enough, and I realize they are necessary evils. But when the same commercial is repeated two or three times an hour I make a vow never to purchase that product.
7. NEW RULE: On the subject of commercials, any ad for a drug or medication that spends more time listing all the negative side effects than the positive ones MUST no longer be aired. And one has to wonder why the FDA would have approved such a hazardous product in the first place.
8. NEW RULE: At least once a night MSNBC MUST say something positive about the Republican Party and Fox News Channel MUST say something positive about President Obama and the Democratic Party. Whatever happened to news programs that really were “fair and balanced?”
9. NEW RULE: Any “reality show” about a family with more than six kids MUST place a substantial amount of money in escrow to pay for those kids therapy when they reach adulthood.
Have any “New Rules” suggestions yourself? Please send them to pennerst@hotmail.com.
1. NEW RULE: When a cable news network interviews an elected politician concerning an issue such as health care, they MUST run a scroll below the talking head revealing how much money in campaign donations said politician received from relevant interests, such as insurance and pharmaceutical companies. Just so the viewer can figure out where the pol is really coming from.
Related Stories
2. NEW RULE: When a talk show host interviews an actor or actress from one of my favorite television shows they MUST ask in depth questions about the character the person plays, rather than letting him or her ramble on relating silly anecdotes from their personal life. I recently saw Hugh Laurie interviewed by Jay Leno, and the interview could not have been more boring without one iota of insight into the fascinating and complex Dr. House.
3. NEW RULE: On every network that airs sitcoms there MUST be at least one family where the husband is either younger or better looking than the wife. I am tired of watching portly, balding husbands married to women who in real life would never have given that guy the time of day.
4. NEW RULE: Let's ban gyrating figures hyping other shows on the same network on the bottom of the screen every time the show returns from a commercial break. While we're at it, let's eliminate the network's logo being permanently placed at the bottom right hand corner of the screen. We know what station we are watching!
5. NEW RULE: Shows scheduled to run from 9:00 to 9:30 MUST start and end precisely at those times. It is extremely irritating to DVR a show, and then later when watching it, to have the recorded version cut off a minute or two before the show actually ends!
6. NEW RULE: No airing of the exact same commercial more than once on every show. Commercials are bad enough, and I realize they are necessary evils. But when the same commercial is repeated two or three times an hour I make a vow never to purchase that product.
7. NEW RULE: On the subject of commercials, any ad for a drug or medication that spends more time listing all the negative side effects than the positive ones MUST no longer be aired. And one has to wonder why the FDA would have approved such a hazardous product in the first place.
8. NEW RULE: At least once a night MSNBC MUST say something positive about the Republican Party and Fox News Channel MUST say something positive about President Obama and the Democratic Party. Whatever happened to news programs that really were “fair and balanced?”
9. NEW RULE: Any “reality show” about a family with more than six kids MUST place a substantial amount of money in escrow to pay for those kids therapy when they reach adulthood.
Have any “New Rules” suggestions yourself? Please send them to pennerst@hotmail.com.
Monday, October 5, 2009
A Pret-ty, Pret-ty Good "Curb Your Enthusiasm"
A standard plot line in many movies and television shows is the old “We have to get the gang back together again.”
Whether done with the enthusiasm of an old Andy Hardy movie, or the wackiness of “The Blues Brothers” film, or the coolness of “Ocean's 11,” I always enjoy them.
But when Larry David applies his peculiar and totally absurd take on getting Jerry, Elaine, and Kramer to agree to do a “Seinfeld Reunion Show,” the results were an HBO episode of “Curb Your Enthusiasm” that will go down as one of my all-time favorites on what I have previously stated is my all-time favorite sitcom!
What I find especially appetizing is the fact that this planned reunion show comprises the main gist of a story arc that will cover the entire season of “Curb!”
To recap last night's episode, Larry has always labeled such reunion shows as “pathetic” and “desperate.” But he buckles under NBC's pressure to produce such a show for a reason only Larry's peculiar mind can concoct.
Currently separated from wife Cheryl, Larry determines that he can win her back by putting together the reunion show and casting Cheryl as the divorced wife of George's character, who is desperately trying to win his wife back.
Get it? A Larry David show is like an artichoke, with layers of plot twists piled upon one another, and mixed in with obscure references to past shows.
But first Larry must convince the main cast characters to get on board. While they are all very reluctant, he weasels them into participating by appealing to their egos and pulling out a classic Larry David tactic…lying. He tells each of them that the others are all “chomping” at the bit to participate.
Jason Alexander (George) gives the best reason of all to do a reunion show, to make up for the finale of “Seinfeld” which was a letdown to most people. (Including myself) Of course Larry, who wrote that episode, disagrees.
In his persuasive arguments, Larry suggests plot lines that reference back to previous “Curb” shows. He tell Julie Louis-Dreyfus that her Elaine could cut off a doll's hair, and he tells Michael Richards that Kramer could pick up a hooker in order to use the carpool lane to get to a Dodgers' game.
Of course scattered throughout the show are the usual Larry David battles with people over the size of a tip, diagnosing Susie Greene's lime disease, and the location of a pair of free Lakers' tickets.
In the process he manages to alienate everyone, including the NBC executive who had green-lighted the show.
But in his usual style of offering begrudging apologies and apologies for his apologies, Larry eventually gets everyone back on board, and we are left with the final cliffhanger.
Remember, Larry's whole reason for doing the show is to win back Cheryl by casting her as George's ex-wife. However, much to Larry's consternation, we discover that Jerry has already promised the role to actress Meg Ryan.
And now the fun begins! I personally can't wait for the coming “Curb” episodes. I am sure that they will be pret-ty good, pret-ty, pret-ty good.
Whether done with the enthusiasm of an old Andy Hardy movie, or the wackiness of “The Blues Brothers” film, or the coolness of “Ocean's 11,” I always enjoy them.
But when Larry David applies his peculiar and totally absurd take on getting Jerry, Elaine, and Kramer to agree to do a “Seinfeld Reunion Show,” the results were an HBO episode of “Curb Your Enthusiasm” that will go down as one of my all-time favorites on what I have previously stated is my all-time favorite sitcom!
What I find especially appetizing is the fact that this planned reunion show comprises the main gist of a story arc that will cover the entire season of “Curb!”
To recap last night's episode, Larry has always labeled such reunion shows as “pathetic” and “desperate.” But he buckles under NBC's pressure to produce such a show for a reason only Larry's peculiar mind can concoct.
Currently separated from wife Cheryl, Larry determines that he can win her back by putting together the reunion show and casting Cheryl as the divorced wife of George's character, who is desperately trying to win his wife back.
Get it? A Larry David show is like an artichoke, with layers of plot twists piled upon one another, and mixed in with obscure references to past shows.
But first Larry must convince the main cast characters to get on board. While they are all very reluctant, he weasels them into participating by appealing to their egos and pulling out a classic Larry David tactic…lying. He tells each of them that the others are all “chomping” at the bit to participate.
Jason Alexander (George) gives the best reason of all to do a reunion show, to make up for the finale of “Seinfeld” which was a letdown to most people. (Including myself) Of course Larry, who wrote that episode, disagrees.
In his persuasive arguments, Larry suggests plot lines that reference back to previous “Curb” shows. He tell Julie Louis-Dreyfus that her Elaine could cut off a doll's hair, and he tells Michael Richards that Kramer could pick up a hooker in order to use the carpool lane to get to a Dodgers' game.
Of course scattered throughout the show are the usual Larry David battles with people over the size of a tip, diagnosing Susie Greene's lime disease, and the location of a pair of free Lakers' tickets.
In the process he manages to alienate everyone, including the NBC executive who had green-lighted the show.
But in his usual style of offering begrudging apologies and apologies for his apologies, Larry eventually gets everyone back on board, and we are left with the final cliffhanger.
Remember, Larry's whole reason for doing the show is to win back Cheryl by casting her as George's ex-wife. However, much to Larry's consternation, we discover that Jerry has already promised the role to actress Meg Ryan.
And now the fun begins! I personally can't wait for the coming “Curb” episodes. I am sure that they will be pret-ty good, pret-ty, pret-ty good.
Friday, October 2, 2009
Did You Watch Jon Gosselin on 'Larry King?'
Last night I sat on my couch watching “Larry King Live” and listened to Jon Gosselin tell his side of the Jon and Kate saga.
One moment I felt legitimately sorry for him, and the next I found myself scoffing at his excuses. It was soap opera drama at its best, yet by the show's end I found myself much more sympathetic towards Jon.
First Jon claimed that he had been totally blindsided on Monday when he discovered that TLC had dropped his name from his family's' show, which would now be called “Kate Plus Eight.”
Then he announced that as a parent he has decided that he does not think it would be healthy for his kids to be filmed on the show while they are going through a divorce.
Yesterday he posted a sign on the gates of their estate stating that “No film crew or production staff from TLC is permitted on this property under penelty (yes they misspelled ‘penalty') of trespass.”
Larry then read statements from TLC stating that the only reason Jon was doing this now was because his name was being dropped from the show. However, Jon's lawyer, Mark Heller, stated that they had notified TLC last week BEFORE Monday's announcement that they wanted the show terminated.
Jon admitted that “I know I messed up, I do regret a lot of things and that I have to move forward…. I have a sense of empowerment and I have to take back my life.”
He further stated that one of his regrets was using the word “despise” to describe his feelings for Kate on a previous interview. Jon explained that “sometimes in a divorce you say things you don't really mean.”
Then the lawyers for first Jon and then Kate took over “Lawyers frequently get in the way,” stated Mark Heller, Jon's lawyer, while getting in the way. Kate's lawyer, Mark Momjian, stated that Kate's preference is to continue the show for as long as possible.
And back and forth the charges went, with Jon and his lawyers basically saying that the show has violated child labor laws, and that the Gosselins had been manipulated and used by TLC, who, when the show first started, took advantage of a naïve and poor family with eight children, signing them to a very one-sided contract.
Jon added that while he wants to delay the divorce proceedings, it's not to get back together with Kate. “We know we're not going to be husband and wife anymore, but we're always going to be mom and dad. We have to work together…we have to pull our kids off of television, we have to work things out.”
Jon continued to apologize for mistakes that he admitted making. “I can't be a kid anymore,” he said. And later stated “I have been an avoider, I have to take the initiative, I have to be a man, I have to grow up.”
At the end of the show Larry King asked “In retrospect…do you think maybe you shouldn't have started it (the show)?”
“Correct” was Jon's response.
Maybe I am naïve, and I know Jon whined a lot (“I stayed home with the kids for two years while Kate traveled and spoke…I changed 12,000 diapers in one year”).
After all, this was really the first time that Jon had the opportunity to explain his side of the story, and I somewhat believe him.
Do you? Regardless, I am sure that there is a lot more to come in this ongoing saga.
One moment I felt legitimately sorry for him, and the next I found myself scoffing at his excuses. It was soap opera drama at its best, yet by the show's end I found myself much more sympathetic towards Jon.
First Jon claimed that he had been totally blindsided on Monday when he discovered that TLC had dropped his name from his family's' show, which would now be called “Kate Plus Eight.”
Then he announced that as a parent he has decided that he does not think it would be healthy for his kids to be filmed on the show while they are going through a divorce.
Yesterday he posted a sign on the gates of their estate stating that “No film crew or production staff from TLC is permitted on this property under penelty (yes they misspelled ‘penalty') of trespass.”
Larry then read statements from TLC stating that the only reason Jon was doing this now was because his name was being dropped from the show. However, Jon's lawyer, Mark Heller, stated that they had notified TLC last week BEFORE Monday's announcement that they wanted the show terminated.
Jon admitted that “I know I messed up, I do regret a lot of things and that I have to move forward…. I have a sense of empowerment and I have to take back my life.”
He further stated that one of his regrets was using the word “despise” to describe his feelings for Kate on a previous interview. Jon explained that “sometimes in a divorce you say things you don't really mean.”
Then the lawyers for first Jon and then Kate took over “Lawyers frequently get in the way,” stated Mark Heller, Jon's lawyer, while getting in the way. Kate's lawyer, Mark Momjian, stated that Kate's preference is to continue the show for as long as possible.
And back and forth the charges went, with Jon and his lawyers basically saying that the show has violated child labor laws, and that the Gosselins had been manipulated and used by TLC, who, when the show first started, took advantage of a naïve and poor family with eight children, signing them to a very one-sided contract.
Jon added that while he wants to delay the divorce proceedings, it's not to get back together with Kate. “We know we're not going to be husband and wife anymore, but we're always going to be mom and dad. We have to work together…we have to pull our kids off of television, we have to work things out.”
Jon continued to apologize for mistakes that he admitted making. “I can't be a kid anymore,” he said. And later stated “I have been an avoider, I have to take the initiative, I have to be a man, I have to grow up.”
At the end of the show Larry King asked “In retrospect…do you think maybe you shouldn't have started it (the show)?”
“Correct” was Jon's response.
Maybe I am naïve, and I know Jon whined a lot (“I stayed home with the kids for two years while Kate traveled and spoke…I changed 12,000 diapers in one year”).
After all, this was really the first time that Jon had the opportunity to explain his side of the story, and I somewhat believe him.
Do you? Regardless, I am sure that there is a lot more to come in this ongoing saga.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Jon & Kate Saga Continues
I know that the soap opera “The Guiding Light” just went off the air after 72 years on radio and television.
But what is happening with Jon and Kate Gosselin this week is something that has to be “out-weirding” any story line that the soap's writers could have ever dreamed up!
Yesterday TLC officially dropped Jon from the title of their formerly highest-rated show! (By the way, the show's ratings had dropped a mere 85% this season from its May premiere.) You can use any reality-show euphemism you like, “America has voted,” or “The tribe has spoken,” etc. But believe it or not, beginning November 2, the title of the TLC show will not be “Jon & Kate Plus 8;” rather it will now be “Kate Plus 8.”
(Pause for readers to chuckle just a bit.)
TLC president Eileen O'Neill released the following statement: “Given the recent changes in the family dynamics, it only makes sense for us to refresh and recalibrate the program to keep pace with the family. The family has evolved and we are attempting to evolve with it; we feel that Kate's journey really resonates with our viewers."
Yes, and supposedly Jon will make occasional appearances. I wonder if he will be eligible next year for an Emmy for best “guest star” appearance.
But the news about the show gets even juicier. Supposedly Kate has recently filmed a pilot for an entirely different new show, which she would co-host with the Food Network's Paula Deen (while continuing the “Kate Plus 8” show). Yes, media star Kate Gosselin is becoming the female Ryan Seacrest!
Now for the juiciest news of all (and I hope my editor doesn't accuse me of “burying the lead”). Even though Jon recently flaunted his relationship with girlfriend Hailey Glassman and stated on an interview on “Primetime” that he “despised” Kate, supposedly he has now had a change of heart.
In Touch magazine reported yesterday (the same day that TLC announced that his name was dropped from the show) that (are you ready for this twist?)
Jon submitted a document to a Pennsylvania court-approved arbitrator, which he hopes will SUSPEND his split with Kate for 90 days.
In the document he explains, "This will enable Kate and me to restore our relationship as cooperative parents and to open up our lines of communication. I hope that she will be as receptive and enthusiastic as I am to do what is best for our family."
He also pleaded with her to set aside their anger so they can start interacting amicably. "I would like to get back with Kate as a partner in parenting," Jon further told In Touch, "Even though we were heading for a divorce, it appeared that Kate had been suffering from this divorce as much as I had. That's why I asked my attorney to put the brakes on this divorce so I could try to regain control over the future of our family. So Kate and I could join on a cooperative course that would benefit our family -- not destroy it." Jon's attorney, Mark Jay Heller, reportedly told In Touch that Jon “woke up one morning, looked in the mirror and didn't like the reflection…He realized he'd made some bad choices." And Jon is quoted as saying "I regret my conduct since Kate and I separated [on June 22]…I used poor judgment in publicly socializing with other women so soon." In Touch further quotes Jon claiming that he's done sowing his wild oats and that he has grown disenchanted with his playboy lifestyle. His attorney insists that Jon wants the document to be a sort of peace treaty: "He is hoping to inspire his wife to become less rigid, inflexible and controlling and open up. We're hoping Jon and Kate can sit down together and start exploring what to do about their situation. Once they do that, the rest will fall into place."
And in one final piece of news, Jon is reportedly trying to sell his own reality show, called “The Divorced Dad's Club,” along with Michael Lohan (Lindsey's father)! I am not making this up!
As they say, “Truth is stranger than fiction,” which is why the Gosselin saga continues, while “The Guiding Light” has been turned off.
But what is happening with Jon and Kate Gosselin this week is something that has to be “out-weirding” any story line that the soap's writers could have ever dreamed up!
Yesterday TLC officially dropped Jon from the title of their formerly highest-rated show! (By the way, the show's ratings had dropped a mere 85% this season from its May premiere.) You can use any reality-show euphemism you like, “America has voted,” or “The tribe has spoken,” etc. But believe it or not, beginning November 2, the title of the TLC show will not be “Jon & Kate Plus 8;” rather it will now be “Kate Plus 8.”
(Pause for readers to chuckle just a bit.)
TLC president Eileen O'Neill released the following statement: “Given the recent changes in the family dynamics, it only makes sense for us to refresh and recalibrate the program to keep pace with the family. The family has evolved and we are attempting to evolve with it; we feel that Kate's journey really resonates with our viewers."
Yes, and supposedly Jon will make occasional appearances. I wonder if he will be eligible next year for an Emmy for best “guest star” appearance.
But the news about the show gets even juicier. Supposedly Kate has recently filmed a pilot for an entirely different new show, which she would co-host with the Food Network's Paula Deen (while continuing the “Kate Plus 8” show). Yes, media star Kate Gosselin is becoming the female Ryan Seacrest!
Now for the juiciest news of all (and I hope my editor doesn't accuse me of “burying the lead”). Even though Jon recently flaunted his relationship with girlfriend Hailey Glassman and stated on an interview on “Primetime” that he “despised” Kate, supposedly he has now had a change of heart.
In Touch magazine reported yesterday (the same day that TLC announced that his name was dropped from the show) that (are you ready for this twist?)
Jon submitted a document to a Pennsylvania court-approved arbitrator, which he hopes will SUSPEND his split with Kate for 90 days.
In the document he explains, "This will enable Kate and me to restore our relationship as cooperative parents and to open up our lines of communication. I hope that she will be as receptive and enthusiastic as I am to do what is best for our family."
He also pleaded with her to set aside their anger so they can start interacting amicably. "I would like to get back with Kate as a partner in parenting," Jon further told In Touch, "Even though we were heading for a divorce, it appeared that Kate had been suffering from this divorce as much as I had. That's why I asked my attorney to put the brakes on this divorce so I could try to regain control over the future of our family. So Kate and I could join on a cooperative course that would benefit our family -- not destroy it." Jon's attorney, Mark Jay Heller, reportedly told In Touch that Jon “woke up one morning, looked in the mirror and didn't like the reflection…He realized he'd made some bad choices." And Jon is quoted as saying "I regret my conduct since Kate and I separated [on June 22]…I used poor judgment in publicly socializing with other women so soon." In Touch further quotes Jon claiming that he's done sowing his wild oats and that he has grown disenchanted with his playboy lifestyle. His attorney insists that Jon wants the document to be a sort of peace treaty: "He is hoping to inspire his wife to become less rigid, inflexible and controlling and open up. We're hoping Jon and Kate can sit down together and start exploring what to do about their situation. Once they do that, the rest will fall into place."
And in one final piece of news, Jon is reportedly trying to sell his own reality show, called “The Divorced Dad's Club,” along with Michael Lohan (Lindsey's father)! I am not making this up!
As they say, “Truth is stranger than fiction,” which is why the Gosselin saga continues, while “The Guiding Light” has been turned off.
Friday, September 25, 2009
'Flash Forward': Now There Was a Premiere!
It's almost not fair.
If you're a sci-fi fan who is addicted to “Lost” and was addicted to “The X Files,” Thursday night's premiere of ABC's “Flash Forward” was like placing a steak in front of a dog…or a shot of MacCutcheon whiskey in front of Desmond Hume. (If you get that reference you definitely are a fellow “Lostie.”)
The action-packed “FF” show sucked viewers in from the first seconds it came on the air. To briefly recap what this series is all about (as if most of you didn't already know), everyone on the planet blacks out for 2 minutes and 17 seconds, causing all sorts of accidents and crises.
During that period, almost everyone has a “flash forward” view of their lives six months into the future. Obviously the question is what caused this “global event” to happen?
But for the people involved, there are two equally important issues that are raised by the lead character, FBI agent Mark Benford, played by British actor Joseph Fiennes.
First, while trying to console his daughter he says “Because we saw these things, that doesn't mean they are going to happen.” Later, at a meeting in the FBI offices he asserts “We can use what we saw to stop what we saw.”
The real questions are “Can they really stop what they saw” or “Are they destined to live out the ‘flash forwards' that occur on April 29, 2010?” (By the way I just looked on my calendar, and April 29, 2010 does occur on a Thursday, the night the show airs.)
Of course, the whole question of whether a person who knows (or once lived in) the future can change the future is at the heart of “Lost,” especially in terms of the way Season five ended.
Several other “Flash Forward/Lost” comparisons also come to mind:
While “FF” hits the ground running in terms of action, except for the plane crash itself, early episodes of “Lost” were more subtle, focusing on character development more so than plot development. While some people complained that there was not enough action in the show's first few seasons, many of us did not care as we became so attached to characters like Jack, Locke, Hurley, Kate, Sawyer, and Ben. The real roller coaster action in “Lost” did not begin until midway through Season 3.
When “Lost's” producers announced that there would be a definite end to the series, the show seemed to rise to a new level; before that point many of us “Losties” wondered if we were just being jerked around by the writers. Even though we have only seen one episode of “FF,” I would like to hear ASAP how many seasons the show will run. (But of course that will never happen, as ABC will delay any decision of that sort until after they see the ratings. I was deeply disappointed when the show “Invasion” was canceled after one season because of low ratings, leaving those of us who were fans of the show in the proverbial “lurch.”)
As with “Lost,” this is a show that cries out for fans to freeze frame certain scenes, such as Agent Benford's “flash forward” to try and get clues to figure out future episodes.
Note that the final episode of “Lost” is scheduled to air on a Wednesday in May, 2010, perhaps a week or two after April 29, 2010. Hmmm, any chance of a crossover?
Sonya Walger, who plays FBI agent Benford's wife Olivia, also plays Penelope (Penny) Widmore in “Lost.”
Dominic Monaghan, who played “Charlie” on “Lost”, will appear on episode 3 of “FF” as a character named Simon.
Anyway, let us hope that “FF's” producers take a lesson from “Lost” and tone down the action just a bit in future episodes and focus more on character development, so it doesn't turn into one of those action-packed television shows that get carried away with computer-generated building explosions and random car chases.
And if you are a sci-fi fan who somehow missed the “FF” premiere and forgot to DVR it, please note that ABC will be re-running the pilot episode this evening at 8:00.
I'll probably watch it again.
If you're a sci-fi fan who is addicted to “Lost” and was addicted to “The X Files,” Thursday night's premiere of ABC's “Flash Forward” was like placing a steak in front of a dog…or a shot of MacCutcheon whiskey in front of Desmond Hume. (If you get that reference you definitely are a fellow “Lostie.”)
The action-packed “FF” show sucked viewers in from the first seconds it came on the air. To briefly recap what this series is all about (as if most of you didn't already know), everyone on the planet blacks out for 2 minutes and 17 seconds, causing all sorts of accidents and crises.
During that period, almost everyone has a “flash forward” view of their lives six months into the future. Obviously the question is what caused this “global event” to happen?
But for the people involved, there are two equally important issues that are raised by the lead character, FBI agent Mark Benford, played by British actor Joseph Fiennes.
First, while trying to console his daughter he says “Because we saw these things, that doesn't mean they are going to happen.” Later, at a meeting in the FBI offices he asserts “We can use what we saw to stop what we saw.”
The real questions are “Can they really stop what they saw” or “Are they destined to live out the ‘flash forwards' that occur on April 29, 2010?” (By the way I just looked on my calendar, and April 29, 2010 does occur on a Thursday, the night the show airs.)
Of course, the whole question of whether a person who knows (or once lived in) the future can change the future is at the heart of “Lost,” especially in terms of the way Season five ended.
Several other “Flash Forward/Lost” comparisons also come to mind:
While “FF” hits the ground running in terms of action, except for the plane crash itself, early episodes of “Lost” were more subtle, focusing on character development more so than plot development. While some people complained that there was not enough action in the show's first few seasons, many of us did not care as we became so attached to characters like Jack, Locke, Hurley, Kate, Sawyer, and Ben. The real roller coaster action in “Lost” did not begin until midway through Season 3.
When “Lost's” producers announced that there would be a definite end to the series, the show seemed to rise to a new level; before that point many of us “Losties” wondered if we were just being jerked around by the writers. Even though we have only seen one episode of “FF,” I would like to hear ASAP how many seasons the show will run. (But of course that will never happen, as ABC will delay any decision of that sort until after they see the ratings. I was deeply disappointed when the show “Invasion” was canceled after one season because of low ratings, leaving those of us who were fans of the show in the proverbial “lurch.”)
As with “Lost,” this is a show that cries out for fans to freeze frame certain scenes, such as Agent Benford's “flash forward” to try and get clues to figure out future episodes.
Note that the final episode of “Lost” is scheduled to air on a Wednesday in May, 2010, perhaps a week or two after April 29, 2010. Hmmm, any chance of a crossover?
Sonya Walger, who plays FBI agent Benford's wife Olivia, also plays Penelope (Penny) Widmore in “Lost.”
Dominic Monaghan, who played “Charlie” on “Lost”, will appear on episode 3 of “FF” as a character named Simon.
Anyway, let us hope that “FF's” producers take a lesson from “Lost” and tone down the action just a bit in future episodes and focus more on character development, so it doesn't turn into one of those action-packed television shows that get carried away with computer-generated building explosions and random car chases.
And if you are a sci-fi fan who somehow missed the “FF” premiere and forgot to DVR it, please note that ABC will be re-running the pilot episode this evening at 8:00.
I'll probably watch it again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
