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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
