Shark: LAPD Blue review

Quick review: Not bad, but not great either. All in all, the show is starting to grow on me. Catch it on CBS's Innertube if you missed it; bear in mind, it appears CBS only keeps it online until the next new episode airs. From my quick glance to get a couple of things for this review, I noticed they still haven't fixed the volume of the commercials.

This week's show takes place about two months after Stark has been a member of the LA county DA's office. In this sense, at least it's trying to respect the idea that so called "big trials" don't come around that often. Also, since my weekly poker game got cancelled last night, I certainly appreciated watching how he goaded the AG (or whatever his role is) into betting into whatever high percentage draw he was on in order to make their office a little bigger. Speaking of poker games, I did catch some of the WSOP final table and just found it entertaining that the chip leader (and eventual winner) used his 9:1 or whatever amount he had to simply splash in every time and then force the rest of the table to make a definitive move or get out.

Anyway, "LAPD Blue" was about a cop killer and how Stark's crackpot team of attorneys were going to take on the defendant, who coincidentally is being represented by one of Stark's former protégés (who he had fired for losing a case 7 years earlier). As you may have suspected, the State lucks out as this guy winds up taking a plea agreement. Good for them.

It's amazing how easy it is for television shows to play on the court's discretion to have a motion go in the way they need it to. The judges may or may not wind up being more pro-state or pro-defendent, it doesn't really matter since they don't appear to be playing a central character role in this particular law series, and that's good. While I question the need for the state on this show to win at all costs (e.g., forging a document to get probable cause under those circumstances and trying to determine how to deal with the mandatory disclosure of the exculpatory evidence they came across), I suppose I can set aside my disbelief for the story itself and instead focus on the ultimate argument they wound up presenting. I think that given the screw up, in real life, the charges probably would have been dropped as they suggested, but we all know that television mirrors life, so whatever.

As far as the advancement of the overall plot and general character development, at least they started to get into it a bit this time, which is why I think the show has potential. They also toned down the whole father-daughter storyline to the level I think necessary for this type of show. As far as character development, it could have done a little better, but they are getting there, and if they did it, well, hopefully Heroes will be able to do the same thing in its second episode. Since I don't watch these lawyer shows for any of these reasons, however, I think I will reserve my concluding remarks by saying that it still did well to show a couple compelling arguments, although very poor direct examination (in the beginning).

There were a few one liners that were pretty funny - the only one I can really remember is "Fortune favors the bold." (which isn't that funny, I know, but worth remembering). The "stick a bandaid under your bleeding heart if you want to win" line was pretty good also.

I will probably watch a few more of these episodes and if I feel so inclined, will write down my thoughts. In case I do not bother to, however (which I think is a high probability), my general recommendation for Shark is positive.

Tags: shark, lapd blue, nbc

Read more!

The anatomy of a successful television drama

While I do not feel the need to rebut any of the comments of any reader of my Heroes pilot review, the use of the colloquial word “snarky” in one of the comments (which Webster’s online dictionary describes as “crotchety” or “snappish,” but may also mean “sarcastic, impertinent, or irreverent”) implies that this reader missed the entire point of my review, and based on those same comments, somehow thinks my review will carry an irreparable blow against the series. Although flattering, I do not see that as the case.

Heroes is okay. It’s not world beating, and it’s certainly not original by any stretch of the imagination. Unless by original, you mean the idea of humans developing these specific super powers has never been on a live action television show, then yes, it is a new development on an age-old theme. To the extent that my initial assumption presumes that Heroes will, at best, have a two-season run, it only comes from my reaction after watching the pilot. Heroes appears to have fallen into the trap of those types of shows with little-to-no character development. Whether Heroes overcomes this hurdle and ultimately succeeds remains to be seen, and I will watch a few more episodes to determine whether the first show was just a fluke.

I. Preliminary matters
Before I get into the generalities of a successful television drama (comedies are a whole other ball of wax), let me first agree with the commentator’s point that the science fiction genre has a smaller audience base to begin with. This may be a preliminary strike against Heroes, but obviously NBC’s relevant committee thought it had enough potential to develop, so I will likewise not count its genre against it either. That being said, for Heroes, or any show for that matter, to truly capture an audience, several things need to happen. See, e.g., Desperate Housewives season 1, Twin Peaks, or the season of “Who Shot J.R.” on Dallas. It is no different than what makes for a successful book or movie.

For much of my explanation, I will be citing Lost as a primer for a successful television show, although I do not by any means imply that success naturally follows from the cookie cutter formula I present. I distinguish these remarks concerning dramas from comedies because comedies don’t really have the same problems - the most successful comedies simply never really advance time nor have to. This can’t be done in a drama, but television time obviously can be slowed down considerably (e.g, 24, Lost). For most typical dramas, however, (e.g., Wonder Years, Dawson’s Creek, Gilmore Girls, etc.), time marches on, and the characters grow up (or get pregnant) and the storyline has to adjust for that for better or for worse.

II. The commonalities of a successful show
Linear time problems aside, all a show needs to succeed is two things: character development and a compelling plot (and audience relatability/believability as to both). You can apply this theory to every successful television show, movie, or book, and they all have it (even Harry Potter, whose reader/watcher audience can relate to in their probable hopes that they are born to do something great, and the whole good v. evil theme most people can understand as well). I also think that online media presents a third unique way of drawing a broader audience in and fostering success, and I allude to this possibility toward the end of my commentary.

A. Character Development
First, the success of any drama, science fiction or otherwise, depends in large part to character development and the audience’s ability to relate to them. Thus, primary to a show succeeding in today’s society, it must be able to capture its intended audience through its characters, and it must do so quickly. The characters are the ones telling the story in any number of ways. Like most bands who have only five members, the optimal range for a show has only four to six characters; with many more than that, it becomes difficult for the audience to follow and start rooting for any one character. Obviously, there are exceptions (case in point, Lost, which succeeds because it made the Island, a non-speaking or actual character, central to the plot).

The large cast of Heroes, in contrast to Lost, may work to its detriment. I just feel that the seemingly large cast, given the way the pilot developed, makes it difficult to believe the series will be able to develop adequately any one character such that the general 18-49 demographic (or elder demographic) will relate. In other words, they just tried to do too much in a very short amount of time, and I think that in such cases, there are other, more effective methods. Maybe the jumping around and multiple character storylines will change over the next five episodes. If it does not, I don’t see its share increasing for its time slot or really surviving past more than one season.

B. Theme
The second key to a drama’s ultimate success and at least as important as character development is that the audience must be hooked into a believable theme almost instantly, and this theme must pervade the pilot episode. Granted, for any television show, science fiction or otherwise, you’re going to have to suspend belief a bit (and sometimes more than a bit). For Grey’s Anatomy, you knew the friction between the central characters instantly (general theme: love and work; target market = 18-49 women and their husbands). For Lost, you knew the plane crashed and something else was on the island (general theme: mystery, survival – examination of humanity in a Lord of the Flies type manner; target 18-49 men and women). For 24, you knew some bad shit was about to go down (general theme: good v. evil; target 18-49 men). And so forth.

For science fiction shows, you not only have to capture initially an audience beyond those who like the genre, you have to convince them to suspend an incredible amount of disbelief. The possibilities for success are certainly there (e.g., the Spiderman movies, or any other comic book type movie that grossed better than $100 million). For a weekly television show, however, asking the audience to suspend disbelief requires almost a leap of faith, which can be accomplished effectively and completely only through trust (hence, the importance of character development).

Take a show like Medium, for example. While talking to ghosts seems far-fetched to the casual viewer, the idea of police departments using psychics can be squared in the realm of possibility if it were true, and this show simply elaborates on that initial presumption. If the characters in the show believe it (after some convincing sometimes), the audience will tend to believe it. It’s the same way people can watch Jack Bauer evade every attempt at his life through various criminal ineptitudes (see Austin Powers for their take on this when Scott asks Dr. Evil why he just doesn’t shoot him). How Medium tries to capture the larger audience, however, and how it does an admirable job of doing so (despite the crutch of its time slot) is through its development of the Alison’s character beyond her “gift”: Medium is really about the struggle of a mother and wife trying to balance her work and talents that go with it along with her family. I submit that more people can relate with that in the 18-49 demographic than those who can relate with the ability to talk with ghosts, and it could probably carry a 9 PM Tuesday slot rather than Monday at 10 (or whenever it will be airing if and when it does come back).

Unlike Medium, however, Heroes faces an uphill battle because the pilot failed to engage the audience into developing any sort of meaningful relationship with any of the characters. This isn’t fatal, but maybe it would have been worthwhile to develop it online a bit and then air the show – think lonelygirl. NBC blew their initial attempt at doing this, but I am cautiously optimistic they can recover.

1. The importance of storyboarding
Furthermore, for a well-themed story (and Heroes certainly has this potential) to develop itself fully, the writers essentially have to have the entire storyboard for the series written in order to a) provide consistency for the individual plots, and b) to convey to the audience (through various connections) where they are going. It helps develop trust of the characters and encourages a deeper suspension of disbelief and desire to find out “what happens next.” This obviously was done with Lost, and it may have been done with Heroes; it just remains to be seen. What I mean by this element may be better described as “believability-B” – meaning every episode serves a purpose to advance the overall storyline.

Too many shows on television do not plan ahead for this. Case in point, Alias. Alias had a great storyline that ran through the entire first season and despite some Felicity-esque deviations, concluded with the takedown of SD-6. I suspect that the Rambaldi plot (which reappeared toward the end of the fifth season) had meant to conclude around this time as well, but when ABC signed onto another two years, they had to figure out a way to drag it along. If I had to speculate, I would say that JJ Abrams must have thought, "well, I’m ready to move onto another project and yet I’ve been roped into this one for another couple of seasons. I know, I will create another double agent and another shadow organization and largely duplicate the storyline from the first season." Genius! (read: sarcasm, but good for him for making a ton of money either way off it). The end result to this point is that the storyline had to be stretched out much longer than it probably should have been and the latter seasons simply fell off the scale of the already generously suspended disbelief the show called for.

For Heroes, you saw a guy jumping off a building and then all of a sudden he’s waking up, and then you’re in India. While this jumping around does have its merits in the movies, it does not translate as well to the small screen. Obviously, you know what the show is about from the previews; the jumping around in the pilot of Heroes, however, simply didn’t advance the plot significantly or appropriately develop the theme of the series or its characters to capture the general audience. Further, the theme did not even materialize until the end of the episode, and even then, if you weren’t paying attention, you would have missed it. I can suspend disbelief to a lot of things, and assuming my views represent the average 18-49 viewer, the limits of disbelief suspension weren’t even reached in this episode. As I mentioned in the subsequent pilot review, the Heroes generally are pretty reluctant, and I feel this reluctant hero theme, while okay, has been beaten down as of late. Other than the teleporter and the guys who fly (or will fly), the heroes don’t really want this power that has (to my understanding) come out of nowhere. It’s just tough to relate to, even if you can suspend the disbelief of such evolutionary jumps.

Even though the exact theme of Heroes came out in the end, the idea that they were coming together was hinted at throughout the episode, and this is what led me to give it a six episode run. My disagreement with the writer’s theory of plot development is just an opinion; there are many ways it could have been done, and this was simply one of several. Obviously the central plot/theme is that these “Heroes” have developed power, largely concurrently, and by hook or by crook they will be brought together for the common good. A good old American heroes theme. Nothing wrong with that; people can relate because many have superman/superwoman type complexes. But too many cooks can spoil the pot, and too many storylines can spoil the plot. As such, and not to keep beating on the point, but I found the pilot both difficult to relate to any individual character, and I’m just not sure if the plot of “saving NYC” by banding together can carry through an entire season. Again, maybe I will be proven wrong, which is why I think the show at least merits a few more watches.

2. The maximum stretch of any storyline
This being said, a single storyline of a show today can probably be advanced to its logical completion within three seasons. Even the most successful dramas ratings peaks last only three to five seasons at best, and usually by the fifth (if it makes it that far), its general audience’s interest level has already begun to decline (I would point to the inconsistencies of 24’s various seasons as one example, and Alias’s final two seasons from the cloning plot on as another example). Supposedly Lost is following this premise, as JJ Abrams has apparently not signed on for a fourth season. I tend to hope this is the case as I am not sure they can keep dragging this story much longer.

Given the assumption that most storylines can’t be extended past one or two seasons (e.g., Desperate Housewives), I believe that for a successful show to carry ratings past that and still be able to compete with popular “variety” shows such as American Idol, the storyline must be compelling, and also one which draws the audience in. Mysteries seem to have done well these past few years, other stories, while so-called critically acclaimed ones (e.g., Jack and Bobby, Dead Like Me) tend to falter. I would go as far to say these so-called failures may simply have been cursed from the start by the network or time slot. The pilots on the major three networks with initial success tend to instantly receive an increase in publicity to develop further the audience base and increase ratings, and those shows that receive lower ratings initially are effectively left to die in a sort of “I told you so” manner. I’m not sure what the need to cut loose is, but nevertheless, it’s a president’s prerogative.

I don’t mean to imply by these latter comments that only mysteries succeed in television dramas; I am only stating that the audience must be captivated to the storyline such that they must see how it continues from week to week and mysteries have a greater likelihood of doing so. Action shows like 24 (Season 1 toward the end, Season 2, and Season 4) and Alias (season 1) also do a good job of engaging the audience; the drawback is that missing an episode in such serial shows acts as a deterrence to continue watching the series. Online media has effectively resolved this problem.

Whether Heroes can succeed with its storyline remains to be seen. They have five episodes to capture my attention with their potentially compelling storyline and potentially relatable characters, and if they do not, I will simply engage my free time with a (hopefully) more productive outlet. I can’t imagine I am the only one who watches tv this way; whether my remarks are representative of the 18-49 demographic generally or just an unmarketable segment of it does not matter to me in the least. I’m just using it to give me something to do when I need a break.

III. Conclusion
In conclusion, for a show like Heroes to succeed with such a massive character base and loose plot, it will have to develop the characters and focus the plot in such a fashion that encourages a broader audience to be compelled to continue watching the series. I suggest that an easy means for this to be accomplished would be to air an exclusive online scene (five to ten minutes) that supplements/advances the plot, but not so much that you have to watch it online.

As far as I know, no television show has adapted this type of strategy; Lost comes closest with its online game. I suspect that the time is near when all shows will eventually engage in this particular marketing scheme; perhaps NBC will use Heroes to bring itself to the forefront in this realm in order to captivate further a wider audience, supplement its storyline, and survive past its initial six episode run. We shall see.

Tags: heroes, television drama, lost, nbc, character development

Read more!

Heroes Pilot Review (Re-review really)

This is a condensed review of NBC's Heroes pilot (Genesis) that aired tonight. My original review (which I adopt) can be found here: Original Heroes Review of Genesis (pilot). I recommend watching a few episodes and see how the storyline develops; it encores tomorrow night and I'm sure it's still showing online (probably on NBC's equivalent of CBS's innertube). I haven't used NBC's online media, so I can't make a recommendation on it one way or the other. This show has gotten enough free advertising out of me as it is. Bottom line: worth watching; hopefully it gets better to justify further watching.

As far as what I saw and wrote my initial review on, and what I saw for the most part tonight, the shows were largely the same. I don't recall the brother falling in the end, but I may have stopped paying attention; the preview for next week shows he must not have been too far off the ground, so good for him. Why he dropped his cell phone instead of his shoe is beyond me since they play up the fact he isn't that well off. I am glad the artist overdosed instead of whatever he did in the older version (I seem to recall someone asking for a tourniquet, but I could be remembering wrong and that's okay because that was sort of an odd twist anyway).

Rebuttal comments: Okay, the cheerleader's outfit did burn, you got me. But now I question the extent of her abilities. Is she supposed to be some sort of instant regeneration mutant? Skin scrapes tends to leave scars, and mangled fingers tend to heal differently, so I will now refer her powers not like those of Wolverine but more like an amphibian type mutant since these qualities remind me of their regenerative abilities (e.g., worms or frogs (although my memory of 7th grade biology is long faded away).

The teleporter's storyline still strikes me as odd because it appears that he just ups and develops it out of nowhere, but I'll assume for the sake of argument that he had been trying to perfect it for some time and it finally came together the day of the solar eclipse.

I still think the stripper's power reminds me of a split personality as I previously described.

The agent (or the cheerleader's dad), based on next week's preview, appears to be as sinister as I suspected. The cheerleader may be adopted, but that wasn't quite confirmed, although I can agree that that could be the case. The comic book, 9th Wonders (also NBC's official fan page for the site), appears to connect all of the heroes together, which suggests there must be some other sort of prophet hero if the stoner artist isn't also the comic book artist. Maybe it's Brad Meltzer seeking some quality promotion out of this tv show for his latest endeavor.

I did hear the comments about "knowing our family's past" (the flying brothers) and "your father isn't in a position to help us" (stripper to son), but I'm going to lean on both comments not being as important to the overall storyline, although tv and movies tend to be more sneaky in that respect, so I am probably wrong.

I also noticed the teleporter's obsession with "using his powers for good" and developing them and choose not to acknowledge further the obviousness of this statement. Come on, Heroes writers! Let's have some real dialog and get off this reluctant/brooding hero kick that Spiderman and Batman started. At least Smallville had a young "Flash" who used his powers for good as well as how you would expect a teenager to use them. I still can't give credit for teleporting him into the girl's bathroom, but I guess that's a fair PG alternative given the way they are developing his character, and it's probably not a good idea to encourage deviance on tv anymore than it already is. No complaints with this character, although I make this statement somewhat grudgingly, and am curious how they try to round out his place among the "heroes."

The professor appears that he will be continuing his father's work, so I guess that will be the ongoing plot to bring them together, all the time working against the counter-agency working to keep them apart. It does appear that the painting in the end, depicting what appears to be some sort of nuclear detonation in the city will be the plot that drives them all together. This whole storyline reminds me of something out of Alias or perhaps The Breakfast Club, but not quite.

Will I watch next week? Of course; other than MNF, my schedule certainly allows for tv on monday nights. Does it still need to do something profound to impress me? Most definitely. But, as I have alluded to in previous posts regarding this particular show, I am intrigued by the idea of a shared human consciousness and perhaps this show will hint that the concept is not all that far fetched. Of course, setting aside the science fiction of the show, the idea of an inherent human bond isn't too new.

Tags: heroes, nbc, review

Read more!

CBS's Shark: Series premiere review

Quick review: This show has promise. Not sure about the time slot (maybe it's a better Sunday night show rather than go up against CSI & Grey's Anatomy (and Smallville)), but I'll continue to watch it online as it gets posted. We'll see if it gets better. [Yes, I know it obviously isn't going up against CSI, but my point is that it's not so good that it will win the slot, so why not put it on Sundays at 9 or 10 instead].

I wasn't going to watch another lawyer show, but one of my friends told me about the premise of CBS's Shark and I figured it might be worth watching. And since I played poker on Thursday night and had the Virginia game going in the background, I was able to take advantage of the online viewing system CBS has implemented (innertube) and watched it today in between football games. Plus it's directed by Spike Lee (at least the first episode), so how can you go wrong?

Actor and poker player James Woods plays a criminal defense lawyer named Stark. After the jury acquits his client who was accused of attempted murder of his ex-wife, the same client is charged with murder of his new wife less than a week later. Fed up with the sexy lifestyle of criminal defense work and also because the lifestyle has finally caught up with him, the State offers him a position he can't refuse, the head position of LA's new High Profile Crime Unit. Stark (who carries the nickname Shark) accepts. So sets the opening minutes of the show.

My perspective regarding lawyer shows has already been addressed in a previous post. Setting aside this general dislike of lawyer shows because television (correctly) takes out all of the boring stuff about legal research, I thought this one had promise, in part, because I think the State prosecutor/DA/AG offices ought to do better recruiting (and pay more) in order to encourage those who may be thinking of public service to follow through. So why not have a show featuring the state-side of criminal work (not like Law & Order) and its perks, as opposed to another show about an "unbeatable" criminal defense team. I'm all for it.

Things I liked: The DA badge reference- this probably went over a lot of people's heads but I found it pretty funny and the joke accurate. I thought the jokes and the subtle references about the office supplies and decor were okay as well. Jeri Ryan (Boston Public) being on the show certainly helps, and I'm sure her role will increase over time and be less of a figure-head/counterpart.

Things I didn't like: 7 DA's, all probably there less than 5 years, working on one "high profile" rape/murder case? I don't see LA having any less criminals than any east coast jurisdiction, so I can't imagine all of those fledgling and admittedly screw-up prosecutors don't have traffic and family court cases to deal with first in order to pay their dues. But maybe California does things differently. If they do have that many lawyers to spare such a large amount of resources to this case, why can't they pay more and attract high profile attorneys like Stark?

Stark's personal side storyline with his daughter, while compelling, didn't really add anything (in my opinion), but I guess they are trying to attract a different audience than law school students, so I can always check my email while the sound of those scenes continues. Overall, I will give a nod to that storyline's implicit suggestion that public work allows for more personal time than the private sector does.

Like many other lawyer shows, the witness defendant confesses on the stand, so it may or may not even have had to go to jury, although given the time and resources, I'm sure any deal at that late stage would have been rejected, and if the verdict was not directed, then obviously the State "won." At least it went for the prosecutor's side this time, so good for them. I like hearing arguments and lines of questioning, so like Boston Legal, it is good for that, although I found it much more realistic than Crane/Shore's questioning in terms of cross examination.

My review of the online viewing experience: Quality and speed was great, but the commercials were more annoying than on broadcast tv, primarily because the commercials' volume probably doubles. It's almost as bad as the loud and annoying AIM commercials that pop up every now and then. Volume and that annoyance aside, the commercials are short and non-disruptive, which I'm going to say will have a positive , non-deterring effect on the online viewing experience. (1 every 10 or 15 minutes or so, which isn't bad at all). The counterpoint is that online product placement will and should become much more transparent, which I think is a fair trade off. Online viewing experience: 4.5 stars out of 5. Is Shark worth watching a couple times? Sure, give it a couple episode run and see what you think.

Tags: cbs, shark, james woods

Read more!

Mid-Term elections prediction

With the midterm elections less than two months away now, I figured I would chime in with my predictions since CNN has obviously done so: Anti-Incumbent voter story. This anti-incumbent piece also hits the high points: Greenfield: A gathering anti-incumbent storm.

Prior to making this prediction, I should say that I believe that if the so-called myspace generation used such online resources such as myspace and youtube as a flag to unite behind, the entire system could be overhauled in three election cycles. For those of you familiar with corporate governance and tiered voting systems, it’s obviously an ambitious goal, but given the right charisma and controlling the 18-32 voting block and positioning yourself against the 32-54, 55-64, and old people voting block, it can be done. MTV says to rock the vote; I don’t know if that’s the right strategy but an infusion of new blood never hurts.

Anyway, I don’t think this particular election is so much about incumbents as the articles I pointed to suggest it is; rather, I think we’re back to the blue state v. red state debate again (unfortunately). Washington has quickly forgotten about the Arab port debacle and undoubtedly will sidestep the stem cell issue for another election cycle. Rather, this election will focus simply on the Republican candidates (Lieberman aside) and whether the current Congress is putting this country two steps ahead or holding it back.

I’m sure the Iraq conflict will make its way into the mix as well, but let’s be honest – this election is only an interim gauge on where the political majority stands and whether the next two years will be more productive for the new House/Senate majorities. Assuming the general voting public has reached its breaking point with the conservative extremes but isn’t quite ready to embrace the liberal counterpoint, my suspicion is that the successful candidates across the country will simply play to the middle left.

Any Republican candidate, if they are to be successful, will have to position themselves away from the main party line and appear more progressive, and will likely take a firm stance on immigration reform and security issues when they should be focusing on social security reform and a massive jobs works incentive program. The successful Democratic candidate (who is probably an incumbent) will pretty much play the same card, but will argue how he or she has been thwarted in Congress by a narrow majority, maybe throw a anti-gay amendment remark in, and simply position him or herself a little more to the left against his or her opponent. After the election, someone will write a book on how we really don’t even have a two party system anymore and all elections can really be indicative of is how the voting majority feels at the current time. This person will probably get a press credential at the next election.

I predict (and by predict, I mean suspect) that the Democrats will gain a majority in at least one of the chambers, if not both. I certainly won't be surprised if control does not shift at all. If Congressional control does not change hands, the Republicans will be left with an even greater challenge to deal with in ’08 since this would mean that the next two years would not significantly alter as far as the growth of the economy and decline of unemployment levels. I would go as far as to speculate that the Republicans almost would rather lose here in order to better position themselves for the bigger victory two years down the road. Assuming the Republicans lose control of at least one house, however, such a change will unsurprisingly alter the presidential election in ’08 and "Issues '08" will be very similar to "Issues '06." So there’s my prediction. It is based merely on an uninformed, relatively unresearched opinion that I made up just now.

While the opinions expressed here suggests no real idea of how a new candidate (at any level) can begin to make the changes necessary for our economy to jump start again, and for all intent and purpose, actually has very little substance, I can state with certainty that change is coming. As focused as the Republican party has been, the burgeoning Chinese and Indian economies and their collective impact on the world resources/economy has begun to crack the party line.

Putting that elephant in the room aside for the time being, the (liberal) media as well as the liberalized youth of the country are beginning to swell behind an unspoken idea that perhaps the only way to begin to address these problems is to clean house. Case in point, Katie Couric. It’s just a matter of time before the younger, John F. Kennedy style (minus the bootlegging roots), Katie Couric-esque candidates come in and tap the Internet to its 75 or 85% potential in order to win the respective election to which they seek.

In sum, our generation of tv watchers is ripe for some young idealist to sweep in and make a bunch of brash and probably unattainable promises. Carry the youth vote over the 72-is-the-new-69 demographic and any election is yours. If you don’t believe me, just look at American Idol (keeping in mind that their “voting results” are inherently misleading because you can vote multiple times, but Idol carries both the youth and elder generations). Bill Clinton would certainly agree that positions are constantly changing anyway, and since the lockbox of social security appears to still be untouched eight years later, promise away. Accountability only appears around election time, and even then most people don't really know what they are voting for anyway, other than whether the candidate is blue or red. Read more!

Boston Legal: Why Can't We Get a Lung quick review

I'm not going to go into any detail about the season premiere episode of Boston Legal, entitled Why Can't We Get A Lung? (namely because it's only been on for about 15 minutes and it's a commercial), but didn't Denise (Julie Bowen, of Ed fame) get fired on the season finale for her camera phone shenanigan? I don't mean to get all Annie Wilkes on the show, but usually if a partner or higher up admin says "you're fired," the gist of it is that you don't keep working there, or do I have it wrong? Not that I really care that much...

Tags: boston legal, julie bowen

Read more!

Heroes pilot on Yahoo

A quick glance of the front page of Yahoo tonight shows that NBC has decided to release the pilot of Heroes on Yahoo, so this sort of slaps iTunes in the face a bit but earns a checkmark for innovative, albeit delayed, marketing tactics. I'm guessing NBC's media heads figured they may as well try and avoid as many hoops as possible in order to drum up a large audience given the high market share ESPN pulled for its first monday night game. Cf. incredible ratings/numbers ESPN had versus ABC's previous monday night ratings.

I couldn't fast forward Yahoo's version, and didn't bother to try and save it, which leads to the obvious conclusion that it will deter a majority of people from doing so, and thus I have a simple means to support my theory for a rental system for digital media. For a much more elaborate reasoning on why such a system should be considered by all media moguls, see my previous discussion on digital media and the new internet.

Click here for my review of the Heroes pilot.

Tags: heroes, nbc, yahoo

Read more!

Ebay feedback system

Not that my feedback has been tarnished by the feedback problem I will describe, but I think a problem with the ebay's feedback system exists in such a manner that ebay should figure out a way of addressing it. When I'm looking to purchase something on ebay, I typically (as I suspect most people do) check the feedback of the person selling, just in case there have been problems. Obviously problems can arise, and the feedback system ebay uses exemplifies the unique benefits of a check and balance in this particular free market system because it permits a potential purchaser to make a more informed decision.

I've noticed, however, that many sellers are beginning to use the feedback system in such a manner to deter negative feedbacks from being left. So I am clear, these sellers tend to be the ones who charge an arm and a leg for shipping, largely to circumvent ebay's fees, and in some cases, their descriptions are also quite misleading in describing the shipping method or the quality of the item itself.

Obviously the little users who have driven ebay to its current levels do not sell as much as these so-called "power sellers" who basically have found another way of peddling their wares online. And it's good that they are tapping the internet market, I'm not making a commentary one way or another about this because e-commerce is great and should be used much more than it currently is. What bothers me is that in this limited situation, if your transaction has gone badly or was otherwise poor, the simple remedy of leaving a negative or neutral feedback leaves the buyer with a real possibility of the seller leaving an equally poor or negative feedback in retaliation.

The seller's excuse for this feedback trade-off, according to the many related discussions on the feedback forum is that the transaction isn't completed until you leave feedback, and waiting deters unhappy or impatient buyers from posting negative or neutral feedback. This spurious logic defeats the purpose of the feedback system in the first place.

The transaction on their end, in my opinion, is completed the second they receive payment and ship the item, and assuming the payment arrived in a timely period (and with appropriate communication explaining any delay) and the check or paypal payment cleared, the only feedback option that really exists for them to leave is a positive response. If their poor sales practice leaves the customer unhappy, the customer's true remedy (besides reimbursement, which may yet prompt a positive feedback) is to leave the appropriate feedback so other prospective buyers are aware of potential problems (And this feedback should be detailed, not like the normal "A+ transaction, etc." which is unhelpful for some, but not all items). And yet some of these sellers wait until they get a response and then simply copy the feedback grade. With business acumen like that, I'm surprised they are still in business. Nevertheless...

As someone who has both bought and sold on ebay, I tend to leave three types of positive feedback largely dependent on the communications via email, the timing of the payment, or the receipt/prompt shipment of the item. Unless I get a deadbeat buyer, which has happened twice out of all the 119 times I have left feedback, I tend not to use neutral feedback at all, and any negative feedback given is usually detailed. There have been two instances of transactions which probably warranted a neutral feedback, but I chose not to leave it for the reasons explained in this post.

Essentially, I am leery of leaving a neutral or negative feedback where one is warranted against certain sellers who appear to retaliate against such feedback postings as described in the aforementioned manner. I don't know if there is any adequate solution to this problem.

The obviously remedy against a neutral or otherwise poor seller who still held up their end of the bargain albeit slowly or in a manner differently described is to simply leave no response, which obviously does not inform a future buyer or ebay of the problem. Most sellers with these problems appear to not leave feedback first, so the buyer can't draw any attention to a beef with the sale lest risk the buyer's (probably perfect) feedback rating.

The only other solution I have come up with, but have not actually employed, is to wait until the 89.5th day (or later) before your feedback response possibilities have run out and hope that in between the time frame that you post, the seller misses the deadline to retaliate. But honestly, who would put that much effort into it or actually remember to do it? Ebay should just shorten the feedback time period, to say 60 days, and if enough people employ this last-minute method, maybe some of these poorer sellers will get the idea. That's the only solution I can offer to this problem; hopefully ebay has been tossing around a better or at least equally appropriate one.

Tags: ebay, ebay feedback, feedback forum

Read more!

Lexisnexis Fact or Fiction

I'm up to 19 or 20 out of the 60 you can answer playing this year's Lexis Nexis's "passport of fun" game. Often it takes a minute, and the questions are pretty straightforward. Every now and again though, Fact or Fiction takes some liberty and will just not be right or it picks an ambiguous question that may be false or true depending. Honestly, I only get mad when I pick wrong.

Today's question, however, speaks for itself. It asked whether "res ipsa loquitur" meant "the thing that does for itself." Any first year law student who has gotten that far in torts knows that generally it what res ipsa means. Of course, the exact dictionary definition (according to fact or fiction and the subsequent research on their site I had to do to see exactly why I got it wrong) says it means "the thing that speaks for itself." While the choice of words in some cases (and probably more than some) are very important in law, I protest that those definitions have any meaningful difference and stand by my original answer. Stupid fact or fiction.

At least Fact or Fiction this year just goes until you get 60 right (presumably) so it doesn't matter how many you get wrong (presumably).

Similarly, my Westlaw trivia question asked whether the statement "Restatements provide concise, clear black letter law statements, often followed by comments and illustrations of the law" was true or false. Thinking that this had to be a trick question because black letter law only comes from cases and maybe statutes and restatements are simply combined presentations by academics and have no binding effect unless adopted by a court, I believe the answer should be false. However, being somewhat familiar with Westlaw's trivia questions and knowing that the obvious answer is usually the right one, I figured they didn't put too much effort into and got it right.

Tags: westlaw, lexis, fact or fiction, westlaw trivia

Read more!

Pacman High Score: 47030

While this comes damn close to one of my friend's high scores of 48k (high), it certainly shattered my previous record of 32000 and change, and therefore, I thought it was good enough to share with the world. 47030 (board 5) of PS2's Namco Pacman game is pretty impressive. Now, if only I could qualify in Pole Position (also included as one of the games on the disc) or get one of these (so-far) elusive clerkship offers, my life will be complete.

Tags: pacman, ps2, pacman high score

Read more!

Downloading tv shows via itunes

I suspect I will write more on this later or another day since I am about to play in my weekly card game, but two pieces of news have crossed my desk and computer screen that I deem worthy enough to link without elaborate description.

Gaining the A+ for outside the box marketing tactics, one television network continues to embrace the idea of the Internet medium to drum up interest in various programming: ABC offers a million free downloads. As I have previously mentioned, the genius of this particular strategy is that ABC (or any network for that matter) can tell exactly what and where (and probably a host of other things) the demographic of a particular show hits. The advertising benefits, to say the least, are infinitesimal.

The second link also gets an A for marketing tactics, and at least it follow's ABC by a few months rather than a few years. Our beloved national broadcasting company has decided also to stream its shows online: NBC streams shows a day after they air. For similar reasons as explained above, the advertising and marketing potential exceeds anything ever previously imagined by regular broadcasting.

Tags: streaming television, digital media, nbc, abc

Read more!

Movies on itunes: a simple digital media proposal

As I predicted would happen quite some time ago now, the Internet has finally reached the point where you can now download movies legitimately on it. Through both Amazon's and iTunes's movie service, anyone with a high speed internet connection can download movies for a nominal fee between $9.99 and $19.99 (with most of iTunes falling in the $14.99 range).

While this is solid step in the right direction, my question is who will spend their money for this when you can buy the DVD for the same price? I offer this alternative, and having no idea the feasibility of it, can only hope it's rational enough that maybe the idea catches on.

In order to appreciate fully my perspective and idea, however, let me take a moment to speculate on where I see the state of home entertainment over the next 5-7 years. By 2015, I suspect that Comcast will be broken up as a monopoly or at least be seriously challenged, and what we know now as Comcast's on-demand library will be essentially expanded ten-fold and probably working in conjunction with one or both of the Microsoft and Apple companies. All homes in metropolitan areas exceeding 100k in population will have wireless hubs, and 85-90% of all households generally will have high speed internet because it will be run through the electric lines. As a result of the latter, all of the DSL companies will be pretty much dogs in the marketing world and looking to reorganize under Chapter 11. Cell phone bills will still be expensive, but more regulated in part thanks to an extensive energy reworking bill passed two years earlier.

To reach this entertainment utopia in 5-7 years, online companies will obviously have to confront the piracy issue. I believe the problem can be solved rather simply by applying simple supply and demand principles. Most people who will saturate this particular market won't really see the costs since they can easily be built in as part of a unified electric/cable bill. Alternatively, if they are paying $20-30/month for the service, they have no economic motivation to give away for free what they have paid for. And realistically, the widespread availability (supply) would act to deter the demand for piracy anyway. Who would download something of an inferior quality when you can get superior quality also for free just as easily by the push of a button? The movie industry analysts would also want to endorse such a download system because it provides a means to better analyze demographics and real numbers. Obviously this is a bargaining chip the online streaming/distributing companies (itunes, Amazon, etc.) have to play with.

Most importantly, my idea rests on the assumption that the digital video craze will probably reach its apex once 95% of television shows are available on one or both of the sites, and I suspect this will take a mere 5-7 more years. Based on Napster's peak and itunes's initial successes and market dominance, I suspect the mature phase of digital internet media will begin by 2010 or 2011. I would also imagine by then, Apple's iTV or Microsoft's equivalent (think Xbox, but bigger) will be pretty commonplace. Back on point.

Because the market accepts songs costing about a dollar each to download (approx. $10/album) and seemingly accepts purchasing tv shows (roughly 1/4 of the length of movies) at about $2 each, I pose that the optimum price that the market is willing to pay to own a purely digital movie approximates four to six times the price of a single televion show, or $9.99 (7.99/11.99 low/high). That being said, the optimum price the market would pay for a rented video seems to hover around $4 (based on-demand's and blockbuster's oligarchic/monopolistic prices). If, at best, a person is willing to devote his or her time to five movies a month on average ($20/month), the probability of an online merchant attempting to exceed this amount will be low if they attempt to sell one or two digital videos at $10-20 each.

How, then, can you reach $X in profit (assumed to be higher than $20/month/person based on the current videos priced as they are) where the average consumer is really only willing to spend roughly $20 a month on digital media. The answer, I pose, can only be reached through either lowering prices (an idea the movie studio industry obviously has cringed at (for no good reason honestly)), or developing some sort of streaming rental access system (i.e., something like a Comcast on-demand online with a virtually unlimited library). With some sort of per-rental fee or monthly service fee plus, you can probably capture Netflix's market pretty easily and may even begin to cut into HBO & the other pay channels' revenue streams. Purchasing anything in this library is optional, and of course, would be extra. A per-rental could easily exceed the $20/month fixed estimate, and should be favored over some sort of packaged rental fee because in order to stay competitive with Net Flix & its equivalent, you would need to probably keep the monthly rate close to theirs.

The online digital streaming rental system will work. Ask anyone who watches reruns of movies and/or tv shows on their dvd player or vcr and you will hear responses along the lines of the following: The owner doesn't watch them that often, but it's nice to be able to pull out a tape or dvd of something he or she hasn't seen in a while. The same concept easily applies for these online digital video libraries, but instead of having it take up space on your computer or room in your living room, you can easily access it at any point on demand.

The trick with all of this is being able to stream it in such a way that it buffers to your computer completely such that it doesn't skip or skritch or whatever. I am sure the video stream file can be compressed in such a way that its quality is good enough and fast enough, but not so good or fast enough that it is worth keeping (and if you can access it again at your leisure, why would you bother?). And, as I suggested, if it is worth keeping, these companies can easily provide a more expensive, larger, and more permanent file to download or they will purchase the DVD. The way I look at it, people already borrow DVDs and movies from their friends and yet they still sometimes they buy them for themselves. That certainly wouldn't change by this proposal.

My idea may be easier explained in concrete terms. Say, for example, I really liked the Joey Heric (played by John Larroquette) episodes of the Practice. The episodes featuring this character are Betrayal (Season 2), Another Day (Season 2), Checkmate (Season 2), and The Return of Joey Heric (Season 5). And let's throw in The Case of Harlan Basset (Season 6) to complete my list. Eventually this show will get on iTunes and I will be able to download permanently these episodes at my leisure for a mere $2/episode. Presumably, I imagine, if I wanted to get an entire season (say, Season 8), under current market conditions, they will charge me $2/episode and this will roughly translate to the DVD price if I were to buy the entire season. From the viewpoint of a rational consumer, if I wanted to buy the whole season, I would buy the DVD, and if I wanted one or two episodes, I would download them individually. The equivalent of this for digital movie purchases would be to download scenes, and obviously therein lies the rub.

But, if you think of movies not individually but in sets, the concept doesn't seem as far fetched. Obviously stores sell in bundles all the time on the premise that people believe they are getting a bargain (and often times they are, but from the store's perspective it's easier to get rid of something crappy when you stuff it in between two things that are good). So you could buy Rocky, for example, and it would cost $14.99 or whatever, but if you buy Rocky II, III, and IV, you would be forced to buy Rocky V, and the price for all could drops to the $7.99-9.99/per video range I mentioned earlier. You wouldn't even have to bundle them in such sets like that - you could arrange by actor, genre, whatever. That is certainly one method of getting the price down and increasing net sales past that $20-30/month/consumer range.

The other method, I believe, would accomplish the same goal and could be fashioned in such a way to drive online digital rentals/purchases. For any rental of a movie just released on DVD, which is typically not available on pay-per-view for a couple of months, you could probably get away with a $5-6 rental, and a certain percentage of the market will dive at it just to be able to talk about something in front of the water cooler. The purchase price would be commensurate with the DVD price at this point, or you could even block rentals of these movies and they would only be available to purchase and that may work also.

After this short period, however, competition with pay-per-view would kick in, and the rental price would have to drop to the $4/rental stage (purchase price could also drop to the $9.99-14.99 mark). You could probably adhere to that rental structure for all movies released within the past year (perhaps two years wouldn't be too much of a stretch). For movies two years old or older, the rental fee would be a flat $2/rental (and purchase price could fall to the $7.99-12.99 stage depending on the bundle strategy). This price matches the television show rental price, which would make sense since by this time, the movie may be appearing on basic cable or network television.

As Amazon does with purchases, these online companies can easily monitor purchase behavior and tailor recommendations, and I suspect that the entertainment industry could also use the data to speculate on what the market wants in a new movie. Perhaps the side effect would be that Hollywood would stop producing such crap, but that may be a wish for the 10-20 year time frame.

I don't think this idea is anything new, but I think it has merit enough to at least raise an eyebrow for the entertainment and computer geniuses working for these companies. And I'm not sure how you can get the files so you would have access to them for a certain amount of time or whatever, but that's not the point of this proposal. At the very least, executives at these companies have to realize (if they haven't already) that the mySpace and YouTube and Napster generation is getting into that much more key 24-36 marketing demographic (as opposed to the poor income folks just starting off their lives at 18-23 or not-quite-understanding-of-the-internet minded generation at 37-54). This demographic, I pose, is willing to sacrifice DVD quality for the computer quality (and in 5-7 years, they may be one and the same), but such a sacrifice must be met with a commensurate drop in price. Otherwise, the potential for a napster like program (e.g., torrents) to cut into your profits amplifies.

My prediction is that the current online digital prices will act in such a way that it will appear to not be economically feasible to continue the program. I offer this proposal as an alternative to abandonment because I strongly believe that, marketed slightly differently, it can be tremendously successful. But, on the other hand, this proposal is online in a blog, so you may want to spend some money researching my ideas a little further so the higher ups don't start swinging axes. For what it's worth...

Tags: itunes, digital video, digital media download, digital marketing

Read more!

Law firm on-campus interviewing: Who cares why I went to law school?

There is plenty of stuff you can find on the internet about firm interviewing on campus. The short of it is that it's a 20 minute interview where the associate or partner they send may or may not even bother reading your resume in advance, and if you get past this stage, you get to repeat it four-fold at the firm (sometimes with a lunch involved). If you've done well, offers tend to follow, but remember, the rejection pile will never outweigh the one offer you wind up accepting.

I could go on about any number of problems I have noticed with such interviews generally because most lawyers interviewing have no HR experience, but I will focus this entry on the most pointless question that occasionally gets asked, the one that has absolutely no bearing on any part of one's legal career whatsoever: "Why did you go to law school?" The interviewer doesn't care, clients won't care, and if I ever get the chance to answer this question again, I will simply turn the question on them before answering it myself. I'm guessing that the interviewer won't have a good answer either.

Any answer to this question, barring some super story integrated into the law school admisssion's initial personal statement two years earlier, is probably pretty boring:

-I have always wanted to be a lawyer or someone in my family is a lawyer/doctor/etc. and this was a good fit.
Translation: I had no idea what I wanted to do when I graduated college but 3 more years of school without major responsibility sounded like a good idea at the time. I also don't fully appreciate $100k+ in debt or realize how much the IRS actually takes out, so I don't quite understand how broke I actually will be.
-I enjoy debating/arguing.
Translation: My relationships tend to be my way or the highway, and I win more than half the arguments with my friends because I frustrate them to the point they give up.
-Med school didn't take me.
Translation pretty clear.

Let's be real, there is no meaningful answer to this question, and while there are a great number of potentially funny answers, the initial interview probably isn't the most appropriate forum to test such material. The question really only lends itself to two possible answers, neither of which is any more meaningful than my aforementioned responses. Either the candidate went right from undergrad, in which case he or she probably doesn't have a solid reason other than he or she thought law was cool, or the candidate took some time off (1 year or more), got fed up with the working world, and thought going back to school as a career change had more merit than living another day of Office Space. If the candidate has a more interesting answer than that, it should be readily apparent on the resume.

Given this latter assumption, in my opinion, by asking this question, the interviewer indicates he or she hasn't read the interviewee's resume or has given it only a cursory inspection. If this is the case, the interviewer probably is hoping that in the ten seconds it takes for the interviewee to give whatever tossaway answer he or she has prepared, the interviewer can quickly glance over the resume and come up with a better question. The better question the candidate interviewee should then ask to his or herself is why he or she would want to work for a firm who doesn't care enough to send someone prepared to do the interview? What kind of quality of work should be expected from them, and what kind of work are they producing? Think about it.

Because the question is crap, the interviewer should go ahead ask why the candidate is interviewing for that particular firm (beyond the obvious) and cut right to the heart of the matter. Or ask the candidate something from the resume. An interviewer may bill for time generally, but any lawyer can appreciate that a law student's time is no less valuable, so why waste it by asking a stupid question like the one I've discussed ad naseum? Otherwise, when asking for questions (and the interviewer always will), the interviewer subjects him or herself to the opportunity for the candidate to throw their doofy question right back in the interviewer's face. For the candidate, the trade-off of a callback may be worth it once just to have a good story to tell at the bar.

Tags: law school, firm interviews, law firm interviews, law, interviewing

Read more!

September 11 - 5 years ago (my story)

Probably the thing I have found most interesting about September 11 is reading/hearing the various recounts of where everyone else was. For those of you on the east coast, you likely were awake if you were in college or at work. I also have a fascination with hearing the 911 calls, and am, to a certain degree, disappointed both sides of the phone conversation aren't publicly available. Nevertheless, I thought I would take five minutes and share what I was doing September 11, 2001.

I won't forget it because I distinctly remember going bowling the night of September 10, and afterwards going home and thinking that that was just an ordinary Monday. I woke up as I had for the past two months and got ready for work. By this time five years ago (8:15), I'm sure I was sitting at my desk, checking my email and doing my normal start up routine before settling into the day. More than likely, I was getting ready for some meeting that afternoon or working on letters (which was part of my job).

At not quite 9:00, I heard the secretary next door (Kim) come in and announce that a plane had just hit the world trade center. I'm not sure if she was announcing it to our secretaries or in general but we could hear her from upstairs and one of my bosses (Sam) asked for her to come up and repeat it. In the interim between then and her walking up the stairs, I'm sure I checked Yahoo real quick to see if anything had come across the AP wire, but saw nothing. I followed Kim into Sam's office with the rest of the office right behind us.

Sam had a tv in his office, and while we didn't have cable, we could pick up the local NBC affiliate. Sure enough, Tom Brokaw was reporting live and a plane had just hit the first tower. I remember them announcing it was a terrorist hijacking, and the six of us watched in horror as the smoke billowed out. Although I'm not sure if I started to say it or not, I distinctly remember speculating whether or not this attack was another Oklahoma City when the second plane hit and abruptly stopped my thought. In my mind, when that second plane hit, I knew it wasn't an American terrorist attack since nobody in America hates America that much. Although perhaps shallowly optimistic, the fact that only 3000 died all together rather than the 20000 who worked in the two buildings alone is a small victory in itself. The economy took the expected hit, but it was coming anyway; September 11 was just the straw that broke the camel's back.

Much like this stream of consciousness recount, the rest of the mid-morning was a whirlwind of media and dealing with phone calls. Of course, the phone lines and cell lines were pretty much offline or busy much of the day. Eventually, I was able to get through to my parents and family to make sure they were okay (even though I knew they were nowhere near NYC that day). I recall watching a reporter broadcasting from the Pentagon, and I remember he was talking and all of a sudden, he said he saw smoke and people were running and they cut to somewhere else, and the next reporter announced the third attack. There was a lot of speculation at that point as to who knew which planes were where, and I was impressed how every flight was grounded within an hour or 90 minutes of the first tower being hit.

Around the time of the fourth plane going down, we were all speculating whether the towers would fall. The inevitability was that the towers would have to be destroyed anyway; the thing that concerned me was whether the people above the strike zone even realized what was going on (hence my fascination with the 911 calls). Later that day, I did hear from one of my good college friends (who I had originally thought worked in the WTC) who said that she was on the subway and they announced for everyone to get off, and when she came to ground level, she saw the first tower fall.

Another one of my friends told me later that his dad was working in an office in the second tower when the first plane hit and they made an announcement to evacuate the building. He was on the observation deck when they announced that it was okay for everyone to go back to work. His dad remembered how much of a pain it was to get out of there in '91, my friend told me, and after seeing a distraught co-worker too nerve-racked to go back to work, he said that the two of them took the express elevator down and walked out the building right as the second plane hit the tower. They didn't know he had gotten out until he walked into their front door in Jersey since he managed to catch the last ferry off the island.

Fortunately for me, I didn't lose any family or friends that day, and only knew by a separation of one or two degrees people who did. I do remember being a little disappointed by the President not immediately addressing the nation by just saying something to the effect of "I'm still working on it, and will be back on later tonight to address more fully the attacks," but hey, he had a lot on his plate and very little time to digest it. And he did come on and speak briefly, which is what people needed to see. I commend President Bush for his actions that day, and how the entire city worked to save as many as they could have. Up until then, President Bush's legacy probably would have been for his stem cell position he had stated less than a month earlier. And for the Monday morning quarterbacking critics that appeared about two months later, VP Gore would have done the exact same thing and much of the actions that immediately followed would have been identical (and the paths may or may not have diverged almost exactly where you think they would have).

It's now 8:47, which is about the time the first plane hit. Five years ago, I was sitting at my computer just like this, working on something (probably just as unimportant as this) when Kim came over and announced what she didn't realize at the time was a world changing event. Since that time, September 11 has come to exist in our generation's life much as the day of President Kennedy's assassination lives for our parents or the Pearl Harbor attack lives for our grandparents. Everyone can remember where they were when the planes hit or when they first heard about it. The day still comes up in conversations, as it no doubt will continue to do so for years. I can only hope that the continuing dialog will serve in some greater purpose as a catalyst for change, but at the very least serve to remind us that in an instant, the perspective of the world as we know it can be turned on its head.

Tags: september 11, 9/11, 911, sept. 11, september 11 retrospective

Read more!

Sunday Football: Heard around the bar

This was the funniest thing I heard at the bar this afternoon:
Eagles fan to Cowboys fan: Your coach needs a bra.
Cowboys fan comeback: Your coach needs a superbowl ring.

Tags: football, eagles, cowboys

Read more!

Review of Heroes: Genesis (pilot)- 3 out of 4; will make the 6 episode cut

Quick rating: Watch it on Sept. 25 and judge for yourself. It's the best alternative to Monday Night Football, and should hold the timeslot otherwise. Don't bother looking for it on itunes; the link to where I found it can be found toward the end of this review (which may or may not be around by the time you get to it).

Update 9/27: I have updated the link at the bottom to direct anyone wanting to see the pilot to NBC's online media website.

Unlike Justice, the previews for NBC's new show, Heroes (the trailer to which can be located on NBC's website for the show) intrigued me. After complaining about NBC's misleading Heroes advertising campaign, I did manage to find a link to the show via a rather simple google search, which doesn't even require bit torrent or anything else. The quality is decent, and I'll probably re-watch it on Sept. 25 (maybe) to see a couple of things that weren't too clear, but it's worth a watch if you can't wait or have alternate plans that evening and your vcr is on the fritz.

Background for my television perspective on science fiction dramas
The first movie I remember watching was Back to the Future, and that probably hooked me on science fiction generally (although I have very specific tastes). Regarding television dramas with a science fiction flavor, I often find myself hooked on shows that took ordinary life and twisted it a little. Shows in this category that I like(d)/watch(ed) fairly regularly include(d), but are not limited to, The 80s version of the Twilight Zone, Dead Like Me, Lost, and occasionally Smallville (although it's almost gotten too bizarre even for me), Medium, Ghost Whisperer, Star Trek Next Generation, the first three seasons of Sliders, and Quantum Leap. I liked Alf also, although that was more of a comedy, and I was very young when that was on so I don't remember much of it. Similarly, I remember watching My Secret Identity, but couldn't tell you much about it other than he could run really fast and he was in Stand by Me (yes, I am aware Jerry O'Connell was in Sliders and in a few other things also). Regarding the current shows, you may be wondering how I have the time to watch all this stuff in law school and still be able to pull off law review and all the perks that go with it - it's called a VCR (I hear Tivo does essentially the same thing). Anyway, there may be a couple other shows I can't think of right this moment, but at least that gives you an idea of the science fiction shows I have been known to watch on more than one occasion.

Review of Heroes: Genesis (and the show generally)
Heroes, in a halfshell, is about a group of otherwise disconnected individuals whose bodies have, for lack of a better word, mutated in such a way that distinguishes them from the rest of the population. The show doesn't get into the science of it, and, as I had mentioned in a previous post, with little exception, I think you have to suspend all biological/Darwinistic understanding. If you've seen the X-Men movies, it's easy to think of these 5 or 6 people (and perhaps more as the series goes on) as knowing they have these "gifts" and not knowing of any collective organization or group that can help them develop or understand it. Yet.

I suspect that, like X-Men, there is a more (sinister) group that does know generally of these mutations and will stop at no cost to prevent them from developing further for the better good of the non-mutants (ordinary viewers like you and me). Oh yeah, all of the characters (with the exception of Vegas stripper) find themselves in New York on the day of a solar eclipse (sort of like all of the surviving passengers in Lost or the bridge walkers who died when the bridge collapsed in The Bridge of San Luis Rey). The pilot basically centers on introducing some of the characters and the discovery of their abilities.

The Heroes and their powers (may have some spoiling effect, but not really)
Nobody in the show has done any major acting before, but I did recognize the Vegas girl from a couple of movies or tv shows so I'll start with her. I can't remember any character names either, so this is just my condensed version of the pilot.

Vegas mother character: She's a reformed stripper of sorts trying to create a better life for her seemingly exceptionally smart son. Her special ability is some sort of split personality that she can see in the mirror as a off-centered reflection. Her "power" sort of reminds me of the movie Secret Window or Hide and Seek. Nice try NBC.

Japanese teleporter: His power is that he communicates in subtitles. And he can teleport by shaking his head and wishing he was somewhere else. His "power" reminds me of the teleportation power Kevin Spacey's character had/explained in K*Pax. I think there is an X-kid with that power too.

Cheerleader: She has regenerative power like Wolverine in X-Men. Her relationship with the nerdy sidekick who she has videotape her trying various stunts (as you see in the previews) is sort of like Can't Buy Me Love, but it obviously isn't going to go to that extreme. Amazingly, her power to walk through fire extends around her clothes as well since they didn't burn at all either.

Indian Professor: He is continuing his father's research into finding all of these mutations. He travels to New York and becomes a taxi-driver, where he discovers he has the power to pick up only people who are central to the plot. At some point in the show, he may lose his power to walk on his own two feet and be wheelchair bound. You may think of him (minus the evil) like Samuel L. Jackson's character in Unbreakable, since he is trying to figure everything out.

Evil government/private contractor guy: This guy plays the foil to the Indian Professor. His power is that of mastermind, which will probably be developed further. His connections to the other heroes abound. His power to hire competent subcontractor-robbers, however, needs some work.

Art guy: He has the power to draw the future. This isn't really explained but it may have something to do with substance abuse.

Dark haired guy & his twin(?) political candidate brother: I know I've seen this guy in a couple of movies before, but I can't remember which ones. Unlike his minor son roles in these movies, he may be the main character here as he got most of the air time in the pilot. He thinks he can fly, as you can see in the preview and the first minute of the show, and his desire to get his brother's attention drives him to want to test his suspicions. I'm hoping his character is the comic relief, sort of like Greg Focker in Meet the Parents, but I suspect that role is reserved for the Japanese teleporter who listened to his friend tell him to use his powers and teleport into the girl's bathroom at a club.

Cop: He's not in the pilot but he's in the preview. He is played by Greg Grunberg of Alias fame (and he also was Lost's airplane pilot who told them they were 1000 miles off course before being eaten by something that still hasn't been explained). Apparently his power is that he can read people's thoughts. Sort of like Mel Gibson in What Women Want.

Character I would like to see: How about a guy (or girl) who doesn't paint the future but sort of has an instinct to predict the future. You could show her buying three lottery tickets because she knows the third one is a big winner. As the show develops her instincts obviously could get better. I think of other characters who could have virtuso talents similar to those traits that sometimes appear in those with Autism, but this show probably isn't the appropriate forum.

Conclusion: 6 episode run (re-evaluation to follow)
I usually give a show a none, 1, 6, or season run. While I think this show has the potential for a season run (or more), I'll give it the good old 6-episode run to allow it to develop its characters a little more and see if it can get into some sort of storyline. In many ways, I think it is trying to copy Lost with the coincidental characters and may be better off just having each show about a different character with no actual connection (or very subtle and then start to bring them together by mid-season). I'm not too happy about being sucked into a new tv show, but this one seems okay enough that I may wind up watching it. I hope that's the case anyway. The link to the show can be found on NBC's website here: Heroes pilot link). Otherwise, the pilot airs against the Atlanta-New Orleans game (which nobody is going to really care about anyway) on September 25. Another analyst has already written his two cents on whether NBC will trump ESPN in the overall ratings, and I suspect that MNF moving to ESPN rather than broadcast ABC will have a real effect on the television ratings pie.

SPOILER ALERT
The next bit deals with three aspects of the show that don't come until toward the end of the first episode. They are more commentary and rhetorical questions than anything else.


1. The cheerleader's dad is the evil goverment guy? Isn't that a bit contrived?
2. I couldn't see what the guy had painted (and I'm assuming he doesn't die even though I would think that real life odds wouldn't be good and you would bleed out pretty quickly). It looked like some sort of city burning and I'm guessing the cityscape was new york since they flashed it in the next scene before superman tried to fly. I'm assuming "we must stop it" is the event that will unite the heroes in the beginning so they all come together. Personally, a September 11 type tragedy, in my opinion, doesn't make for good fictional (or non-fictional) tv.
3. The brother flies? Well, that was a surprise. I guess he has bigger problems politically if that gets caught on film. Flying though? To what evolutionary end does that help? I mean, I can understand the gills in Waterworld, but flying? Come on...

Tags: heroes, nbc, review

Read more!

Review of Justice: Pretty Woman - 1 star out of 4 (for the show specifically and the series in general)

Quick rating: Pass. Stick with Lost (or anything else).

Although I had no desire to initially see it (read: pre-formed skepticism), one of my friends had heard that Justice is worth watching, so I sat down and watched last Wednesday's episode, "Pretty Woman."

Background for my television perspective on legal tv shows
Prior to law school, I liked the original The Practice until all the story lines began repeating and just about everyone on the show had gotten away with murder (literally), and I like Boston Legal because it's funny. Occasionally I would watch some of the various Law & Order shows, but haven't been able to get into it since I've been in law school. Similarly, The Evidence got a one-episode ax also for failure to keep me interested. Needless to say, Justice had to be pretty impressive to even get my attention, particularly since it is up against Lost. So there's my background of law tv shows so you can see where I'm coming from.

Review of Justice: Pretty Woman (and the show generally)
Justice, in a nutshell, is about a criminal defense firm in Hollywood. It stars Victor Garber (Alias) and Kerr Smith (Dawson's Creek) and two other actors (Eamonn Walker and Rebecca Mader) who are using this show as their big break. Like the practice in Boston Legal, they are undefeated and perhaps differently than the Denny Cranes and Alan Shores of the east, this firm loves to showboat the press.

The first show is about a midwestern girl who goes to UCLA (or USC) and runs to the firm after she kills someone in self defense "because she saw them on tv and knew they were the best." The first half of the show is about prepping her and retrieving a knife prior to turning her in to the Beverly Hills Cops and the second half is about trying to prepare for the trial & the trial itself. Like most of television, and if you've ever taken a trial advocacy program, you will once again cringe at the defects in the television process. In fact, while I can suspend this for Boston Legal since the arguments are persuasive anyway, it was tough to do so for this show. I found the plot contrived, the dialog forced and hard to believe as realistic, and like the mock jury on the show, would simply rate its overall performance downward. I did like how the final scene shows the actual murder so you can see if the lawyer's actually did their job or not.

Particularly, and perhaps my understanding of trial practice is rudimentary, but when you cross an expert and demonstrate something as a possible alternative, isn't that argumentative and more appropriate as a direct on your own witness and/or during closing arguments? Maybe the DA they went up against was a novice. Setting that aside, I'm pretty sure the rules of professional responsibility were broken in just about every aspect of Victor Garber's character. It's produced by Jerry Bruckheimer, so it's got that going for it, and Victor Garber does a good job of distinguishing his Alias character, but the show just isn't that good overall, and it won't get a second chance from me. 1 star out of 4.

Conclusion: Pass
So, if you liked the Practice after Lindsay killed someone and after Bobby was charged with felony murder, but before Alan Shore came to the show, and the far fetched episodes of Law & Order where everything falls in the way of the centered-upon attorneys, you will love this show. I rate it higher than the Evidence, but not by much. I can't say it's even worth checking out, but maybe it would be just so you can judge my perspective.

On a related note, I found a link to the pilot of Heroes where you don't even have to download anything, and will post that and my review either later today or tomorrow.

Tags: justice, fox, review, lost

Read more!

Heroes not on itunes? NBC blows

Note: Click here for my review of the Heroes pilot.

So, as part of an advertising campaign, NBC claimed that beginning September 1, they would air (for free) the pilot of the upcoming show Heroes via iTunes. Free has once again gotten lost in the marketing translation, and NBC, attempting to be the first network to actually test the new Internet marketing campaign waters, fails miserably in trying to invent yet another new definition of the word.

My instant speculation is that unless you can download it via a torrent file or some other method, you're just going to have to wait to see it whenever it airs. As a former "television authority," this implies that the pilot that actually airs will probably be different than whatever you get online, perhaps due to last minute director changes or contractual issues, and also that the test market hasn't been as positive as NBC had hoped. Spreading some hearsay and to make the counterpoint to this rather bleak blanket statement, one of my friends who has seen the pilot says that it's okay and has potential. I asked him if it sort of was like X-Men or thereabouts and he said that X-Men is more of the end result of where this show seems to be headed and this show (now taking extreme liberties of what he told me), is sort of a parallel precursor to how the X-Men all came together. Obviously none of the comic book characters are in it, and the show has nothing to do with the X-Men or X-gene concept.

Darwinism (in the Heroes planet) has led to a person who can walk through fire and another who can slow down time. Another can fly but not quite like Superman. Supposedly there is a bad mutant hero who is trying to be good, and the general premise of the show is that the mutant heroes are struggling with trying to find their place in this world. Aren't we all.

I will say that the none of these mutant ideas are anything new, including the idea that the collective human consciousness is somehow connected. I'm sure that you were already aware that this latter idea of a shared semi-telepathic ability was first explained in Coville's novella, My Teacher Flunked the Planet. It's on every 5th grader's reader's list, check it out. For a penny plus shipping, it's almost as cheap as the purported Heroes itunes download.

I can only imagine that this marketing snafu indicates that NBC continues to flounder post-Seinfeld and Deal or No Deal Season 2 is still filming. Likely, this same marketing department had hoped that the press would be favorable for Heroes and it will be touted as the best new show since Lost. In fact, it may well be the most promising new show on television, but backing out of their marketing campaign is a pretty poor way of drawing a widespread interest, in my humble opinion.

(I'm not going to pay any lip service to the actual movie theater hoop NBC's marketing department ultimately decided on, other than to say that the gripe is better explained by this fellow blogger's Heroes NOT on iTunes description, which I found in trying to figure out why I couldn't find the show as originally advertised.) I would also speculate that NBC may, as a knee-jerk reaction to posts like this, put it on iTunes as originally advertised, and iTunes would be able to give them a more accurate rating than the Neilson estimate, but really, what's the point? I'm sure it will do great against the ESPN monday night game.

Tags: heroes, nbc, itunes

Read more!