I haven't seen more than 15 minutes of this show Eli Stone, but that is plenty enough to say that I can't really keep watching it - the premise is okay, barely, but I just can't suspend disbelief that a first year associate would be allowed to say anything in a meeting, let alone speak over a senior associate during a settlement negotiation.
Sometimes I wonder who are the lawyers who these shows hire as consultants in an effort to make the show plausibly realistic. Of course, with a guy seeing visions, I'm not exactly holding my breath during my suspension of disbelief. This may seem odd considering I have spent considerable time watching stupider shows like Heroes. Nevertheless, as someone who has spent even more considerable time studying the law, I can state with near certainty that this show is way way too unrealistic, even for me.
From a lawyer's perspective, I can't say Eli Stone is going to get any more of my time. Nice try ABC. Next time why not create a doctor who has visions who is surrounded by first year residents who have the amazing ability to perform brain surgery on command.
So, is there a reason that Eli Stone got started at the mid-season? Absolutely. Is it going to get picked up? Absolutely not. Are first-year associates really getting that kind of work? Well, I can't say for certain, but at a big firm like the one portrayed in the show, "all signs point to NO."
But in searching to see if my perspective of the show is unique, I came across an even funnier link: TV Touched By a Law - Popsquire. It didn't have to do with this show, but it was a funny point about a bonehead remark Paula Abdul apparently made to a contestant during an episode of American Idol.
Thursday, February 07, 2008
ABC's Eli Stone thoughts - this show sucks and don't waste your time
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Regardless of this writers strike, Hollywood loses: Or, Why I am going to stop watching Heroes when it comes back on
Notwithstanding my efforts to contribute productively to the global discourse on more relevant topics, this entry is another jab at the goofy television industry. I saw an interesting article the other day that basically predicts that the result of this writers strike will have the same effect on Hollywood that the 1994 baseball strike had on baseball (or the lockout on hockey or the strike in basketball a couple years ago). See Julian Myers fears Hollywood's end is near. Julian Myers is some sort of Hollywood legend who doesn't have any webpages written about him, but I'll take the google search word for it. I agree that this strike is probably going to leave many people (myself included) watching far less television. This is a good thing.
After all, most of the television shows are pretty crappy anyway. Further, I see no problem in hiring so-called "scabs" to give network television another go. But if you're going to do that, why not call them for what they are: non-unionized college students. Granted, some of the shows on TV are pretty well done (mainly, Lost and some shows on pay stations), but they are the exception rather than the norm. I am positive there are some creative minds at various colleges and universities who would love to take ABC or another network up on their offer to come up with a new tv show. Why isn't that on the news anymore? If it works for Fox on American Idol for music, why not convert the television pilot premise into some reality show and then run the "winner" as a scripted sponsored series (for six episodes anyway)? My thoughts on what could make for a good television series are already written and could easily be applied. I digress, however.
My most recent example of just plain bad tv is the Sarah Connor Chronicles. My review of why that show sucked and should have stayed on the big screen is here. According to one source, the ratings for "day 2" of the Sarah Connor Chronicles series premier were decidedly poorer. Well, it shouldn't have taken a robotic time traveler to figure that one out.
Heroes, however, had a much better premise and has gone off the deep end and consequently, off my television list. I will not be watching it again. Essentially, I see two premises that the show will be unable to recover from. First, the whole time traveling thing. I don't need to explain why this was a stupid idea to begin with. I'll simply point to the latest problem that was created by everybody being able to regenerate and time travel: now you've got a storyline where some girl from the past is taken to an alternate future. How can you possibly and with a straight face get her back? And truthfully, why would you want to? For these same reasons, I will no longer watch Journeyman either. Talk about a show that started off slow (with some potential) but literally went slower. And backwards. Literally, not figuratively. Result of the six-episode run for Journeyman: Stop watching it.
Although unnecessary for explaining why I am no longer watching Heroes, I will support my reasoning for why Heroes will ultimately fail when and if it comes back on also because of the whole regeneration storyline. I can't even support going back to the original Sylar storyline because I have no more faith in the writers because (a) the finale promised resolution of that storyline (which it failed at miserably), (b) the finale predicted a far worse "boogie man" for season 2 (which it also failed at doing miserably, and brought back Sylar instead), and (c) the show epitomizes everything that is wrong with tv today. That alone should be enough.
In short, I can't waste any more time on Heroes (or Journeyman), either in watching it or in writing about it. I suppose I will entertain responding to comments on why my points are right or wrong, but I will not be devoting any additional time in writing an entry about it short of one of the show producers or a popular Hollywood magazine or newspaper asking for my comments.
I should have listened to my original prediction in finding that the show was too out of control from the beginning and that I should have given up on it much much sooner. I certainly will not be making that same mistake with Journeyman.
Perhaps a more practical entry on options to spend your valuable free time with will come tomorrow. In the meantime, I suggest reading a book.
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Review of Terminator: Sarah Connor Chronicles - Undoubtedly, Pass
The pilot to Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles can be found online through one of Fox's video websites. I can state, unequivocally, that absent a complete reworking, this show is going to flop. Do I recommend it? Absolutely not.
You can watch The Sarah Connor Chronicles on Fox on January 14, 2008 for yourself if you don't believe me (or find it online when Fox releases it on Yahoo to generate more interest). In either case, I suspect that you will be better off just popping in the movies and wishing that 24 was back on instead. My review of why the Terminator tv show is absolutely not worth watching, mild spoilers included, follows.
As a matter of background, I have previously stated my biases for and against this genre of television shows. Since this is a tv show spun off the movie, I will state that Terminator 2 is one of my most favorite movies, and I liked Terminator 1 for alternate reasons. I even liked Terminator 3, so my expectations for this show really weren't that high. In a somewhat related note, I would have liked the premise for the movie I, Robot to have been the premise for Terminator 3 instead of what that movie actually did, but what can you do.
As I stated a few months back, I thought this show would have some potential. Sadly, there is a reason this show was slated for mid-season, and it becomes obvious after watching most, if not all of the pilot. This is among the worst tv shows I have ever seen. Frankly, I find it hard to believe that Fox even picked it up. Even Heat Vision and Jack has more entertainment value.
Here are some thoughts I had as I watched the pilot. The terminators in the show are like the Arnold-terminators from the movies, not the T-1000 (as you would expect). The show presumably picks up where Terminator 2 left off, and ignores Terminator 3's plotline. The graphic shots of the future robots leave a lot to be desired. The plot itself is very slow, and there are multiple storylines, which supports my belief that the writers in Hollywood are risking more than they think they are gaining from this strike. The only plotline that resembles something from the movies is that the John Connor character is a whiny crybaby who doesn't want his life. Imagine the character from Terminator 3 and you will get the idea. The main plot, however, involves Sarah Connor and her quest to take down Skynet.
Basically, the show starts off in 1994. There is a female teenage terminator who is sent to meet up with John and his mother, and programmed to terminate the other terminators (such as the one in the pilot) that were sent back to kill our future world heroes. There is also an FBI agent who is trying to catch Sarah Connor for her actions relating to incidents from Terminator 2. The only thing that this pilot sort of gets right is that the computers and files (like the ones in Terminator 2) are backed up on remote servers. As Terminator 3 points out, it is pretty hard to fathom that blowing up one building will stop a government research project envisioned by James Cameron in T2. Philosophically, it's the only logical reason why John is still in existence in the end of Terminator 2 after they throw in all the chips and Arnold gives his thumbs up as he sinks to oblivion.
Although I don't presume to speak for him, I am pretty sure that James Cameron would not be proud of this pilot. After one episode, I think that will be just about all she wrote, for me anyway. I can only surmise that Fox hopes that by running it January, people will simply be too tired to complain about it and that they are hoping that maybe it can ride the coattails of American Idol. The fact that this is going to be the ride Fox is banking on with 24 temporarily out of commission, I think, has to be pretty scary for its sponsors, and the network for that matter (although that last part is probably a bit of an overstatement).
While the first 20 or so minutes of the pilot sets up all of this rather boring storyline, the real kicker, and where this show takes a nosedive away from any realm of suspended disbelief is with the time machine that is built into the bank. Basically, the last few minutes of the pilot have the teenage terminator telling Sarah and John that she opened a safety deposit box in 1963 in order to get a futuristic weapon hidden in the present. She then activates a time machine, built by a time traveling "engineer" (also "from the future") and strategically placed there in order to help them escape certain death in the past in order to jump to the present. Sadly, I am not making this up.
I'm not going to entertain this ridiculous pilot beyond this closing thought: If the good guys could bother to build a time machine (in the past), why wouldn’t the bad guys simply have gone back to Sarah’s childhood and kill her as a baby in the 50s. Or kill her grandparents? And a time machine? I know T2 explained this away by saying that records were spotty. But if Skynet controlled the machines and knew where all the defense capabilities and vulnerabilities were, wouldn't they presumably have had access to all of the governmental data to find his grandmother's social security number and residency from a less sophisticated time? I admit, I am being way too critical on a minor point.
Anyway, at the last possible second while standing in this bank vault time machine, they shoot the evil terminator and presumably, this futuristic weapon (also assembled in the past) kills him. Then they activating the time machine and leap forward to a highway in L.A. in 2007. Naked (but tame by Fox standards), they get photographed by a teenager with his camera phone (which every network appears to have picked up). The FBI agent who was tracking them in 1994 doesn't see this news broadcast, but obviously someone will fill him in, and he will have a new lead to go on in the future episodes. I will never know since I am never going to watch another episode of this show again.
I think I've made my point as to how terrible this show is. As a result, I will simply give it two thumbs down and say not to bother. Maybe Journeyman will have started making more sense by the time this show airs (and Heroes will have become better), and NBC will continue to corner that timeslot. Only time will tell. Bottom line: Pass.
Sunday, November 18, 2007
The Office: The Deposition review
I saw this episode, and since most of it revolved around the legal world, I thought I would chime in and say that I thought this episode was great. Even if I wasn't a lawyer, I would think this episode was pretty funny. It's on the rewind website, so judge for yourself. I won’t speculate on how I think the case would actually go, other than it would provide some humor for whatever clerk or transcriptionist read the transcripts and diary exhibits. Also, I'm not sure why Jan’s whole case would come down to Michael Scott, and I don't think his testimony would be that fatal to her case, but hey, it's tv.
I will also comment that I don't think it's that small a leap to say that the idea came from the HR heroes website. See That's What She Said - The Job (suggesting that Jan may have a suit for wrongful dismissal). The complete write-up on the HR heroes blog about this episode is much more engaging than my review.
At the very least, I see this episode as a rare example of the intersection of the internet and tv (although Arrested Development is a different example of crossing recent pop culture references with tv shows, with mixed results). At the very most (but in a rather abrupt segway), the episode does not change my impression that Hollywood writers have no real basis to strike.
Now, this statement is not premised on my assumption that the writers of the Office lifted this idea from the internet. If at all, the HR heroes website probably just sparked the idea, and there is no problem with that. And I like (for the most part), the writing for the Office. After watching the Office writer's video blurb about the strike though, I'm beginning to think that this strike is more about someone's poor negotiation strategy more than anything else. At the same time, though, I still say that the current writing for tv shows (currently and generally) isn't that spectacular, and the writers are walking on eggshells as a result of this strike.
I just wonder whose lawyers are going to win out in the end. My money is on the networks'.
Thursday, November 08, 2007
Heroes and the hollywood writing strike
First, I think this writer's strike in Hollywood could be a blessing in disguise. Apparently I'm not the only one. See "'Heroes' creator to fans: I'm Super Sorry (that the season has sucked)." And Kiefer Sutherland doesn't have to worry about his jail time interfering with his shooting schedule; the strike has already postponed the next season of '24' for at least a year. Of course, that means that the bulk of the pressure on Fox doing well will fall on the shoulders of the Terminator tv show. Speaking of which, one of my friends has a copy of the pilot and we're both going to the same event this weekend. A review of Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles, to be sure, is forthcoming soon.
I'm not going to comment on the details or various plots that are ongoing in this season of Heroes. Needless to say, I still suffer through the show from week to week, only because I mildly empathize with the Peter Petrelli plotline. Nevertheless...
I am going to say that this whole plot line with Claire the cheerleader and West the flying boyfriend is pretty stupid. Not for any tv plot problems per se, but for the whole psychotic boyfriend aspect. Now, I'm not one to give out any relationship advice, but why in the world would a show with the widespread popularity of Heroes give any credence in supporting what I call the worst stereotype on tv today - the stalker boyfriend. I can only hope that the teenagers that are watching this aren't fooled into thinking that anti-social and stalker type behaviour gets you noticed. Well, maybe it does, but not in the way portrayed in the show.
Maybe I'm being far too critical of a minor point. Or that I think that nobody would think this doesn't happen. To my defense, however, I've read too many cases in too short a time to think that I am overstating this position. In real life, the psychotic tendencies of West, based on the couple of storylines he has been in, usually translate over into much more destructive behavior. If that's the point of this plotline and that's where they take it, the writers need to go about it a different way. Which brings me back to my point. If these are the plotlines that are being written right now, maybe it's time to get some new help anyway.
Maybe these plotlines, however silly, are part of the problem. Maybe not. The pending (or ongoing) strike among Hollywood writers begs this question: What the heck are we paying you guys for? Maybe these producers should do what old Ronnie R. did a few years back and hire some new guns. As long as it doesn't interfere with the Lost season premiere in February (which I am purposely doing no research to verify whether this is still accurate or not), I can only hope that the strike will lead these writers to do something a little better in the whole 'solid writing' department.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
NBC rewind has done a 180 from its previously poor quality
Edit: This entry has been overruled by a different entry. Read this for humor; read the newer one for the true perspective.
I've always liked NBC's programming (for the most part) and am glad that most of their shows are available online (if not all of them that I watch, as compared to the other networks that limit their selection for nonsensical reasons). In watching most of these shows (e.g., Heroes, Journeyman for another couple weeks, The Office, etc.), I've been quite vocal at times in my complaints regarding how NBC's efforts at online broadcasting have been less than stellar. My own internet research shows that I am not alone in this belief.
To recapitulate my complaint, I specifically made this comment on Oct. 6: "Fortunately or unfortunately, NBC again has failed to meet any reasonable expectations for the tech savvy generation of which I am a part. Similar to my complaints from last year, I can only simply voice my concern on the internet with their online entertainment division, and hope that the higher ups at GE hire somebody new." Based on my viewing of yesterday's Heroes episode, it appears that NBC finally took my advice to heart.
Quite surprisingly, NBC, in the course of one week, figured out how to distribute online media without sacrificing the costs of producing/broadcasting the shows (e.g., commercials). Yes, it's hard to believe. Basically, they have changed the commercial structure to emulate Youtube's viral video strategy. The spots are made specifically for the internet and (almost) completely tracked toward the timing of their placement during the show's timeline (as opposed to the previous commercials which were rebroadcasts of crummy regular commercials).
For example, the second to last spot says something to the effect of "Enjoy the final part of the show." Of course, they had one more after that, but at least they are attempting to compensate for their previous incompetence. These are short, non-intrusive commercials that do not change the volume or interrupt the feed of the show (other than the 30-second commercial itself). Additionally, there is only one commercial, at indicated times (as compared to NBC's pathetic attempt to throw multiple commercials at "non-scheduled" times in earlier rebroadcasts this season). I can't say that it will direct me to buy the product, but I'm sure this particular campaign should prove successful.
From a marketing perspective, however, I can state without reservation that this is the correct strategy for the current online market. Because of the nature of the commercial, the content and javascript directs the viewer to that sponsor's website and even employs a clever internet strategy in the process. I'm not going to give any lip service to this particular sponsor because they can pay me for advertising just as well as they can pay NBC, and they have not, so I will not. Nevertheless, I would venture to say that it is just a matter of time before the rest of the networks employ similar online commercial strategies. Of course, ABC has already figured out this tactic on similar grounds, so maybe NBC took my advice and hired someone who understands the internet medium a little better than the last person. Now if they will only listen to my product placement suggestions.
So, I will say that NBC's Rewind has gotten a little better. I'm not ready to give it a ringing endorsement, but it certainly is ten times better than it has been.
Saturday, October 06, 2007
Pushing Daisies: Pielette review
Another reviewer does a much more distinct and better job in reviewing this show than I will. Nevertheless, I will give my quick first impressions of ABC's new show, Pushing Daisies. It is, almost exactly as I had predicted earlier, a fairy tale of sorts into the life of a pie maker who can bring the dead back to life. I don't think it's worth watching more than once or twice though. Some spoilers and my overall take on the series follows.
The main character, Ned (Lee Pace), has the ability of bringing the dead back to life. If he touches them again, they die. If he doesn't, they live until he does, and someone else dies to take the place in the great balance that must be exist between life and death. Ned supplements his income as a pie store owner by working with Private Detective Emerson Cod (Chi McBride, who played the principal on Boston Public). Together, they reincarnate murder victims, just long enough to find out who killed them, and collect the reward money. Olive Snook (Kristin Chenoweth) plays a waitress that takes care of Ned's dog and has a crush on him. Not sure exactly where this part of the story is going, and it is unimportant to the show. Similarly unimportant is the storyline with the two reclusive aunts.
When Ned was younger, he discovered his ability the same day he realized that he had a crush on his neighbor, British hottie Charlotte "Chuck" Charles (Anna Friel). In what will certainly be a plot line in an upcoming episode, Ned and Charlotte are connected because Ned brought his mother back to life, for longer than a minute, which led to Charlotte's father's untimely death. Ned's mother died that same day when she kissed him goodnight. Young Ned and Charlotte kissed each other at their parents' funerals, and that was the last time they touched or saw each other until Charlotte's untimely death by strangling/drowning years later.
Basically, Ned brings Charlotte back to life, and because of his child crush, decides to keep her alive. The trade off, and what drives the story, is that they now have an unspoken connection, which they cannot physically express. Unfortunately, I think that's the part of the show that will ultimately be its undoing. But it's certainly a unique storyline that will probably last six or twelve episodes. I may watch a couple more, but probably not regularly.
If you liked the show Dead Like Me (which is also produced by Pushing Daisies creator Bryan Fuller), you'll probably find that this show has similar themes. It also has very Tim Burton-esque use of color and storytelling, which is also rare on television. I just don't think it has the same plot that can make it into a viable romantic drama. I can tell you with near certainty that the show will end with Ned dying, and the girl kissing him, which kills her again, so they ultimately wind up together. Or, they will cop out and he will lose his power and they will get together. In either case, the inability of them to actually get together without sacrificing the premise of the show will preclude the viewers from being able to truly relate. This will translate to low ratings and a change in timeslot before the show ultimately is laid to rest in DVD land or in a made-for-DVD movie that wraps up the show and ties up all loose ends. Neither does this show have the "Ugly Betty" factor that could lead to surprise ratings and success.
I would recommend you to watch this show once or twice to get a perspective of creative writing, but not for much more. It does give me hope that someday I'll be able to meet a British hottie though, since they seem to be appearing more and more on tv (e.g., Michelle Ryan as the new Bionic Woman). If only I can find such a smart, pretty British national on the east coast...
NBC's online Rewind... sucks
Because of my work schedule and clerk social life on Thursday nights, I've had to watch The Office online through NBC's Rewind website rather than on tv at its regular time. While the plus side of being able to watch both The Office and My Name is Earl online without legal repercussions (see, e.g., Jury (unsurprisingly) finds against woman in music download case), I have to say that NBC's rewind site is almost as bad as watching the show in real time on tv. At least CBS puts their new shows on demand, why can't the other networks?
With NBC's Rewind, you now have to watch at least two commercials now instead of one (although even that is pretty inconsistent). One commercial is bad enough, and you can hit mute on that one; the second comes blaring out and there's nothing you can do about it but take off your headphones until it's over. In this sense, ABC's online system is much better and less obstructive. I would even go as far as to say that NBC's Amazon partnership system is a lot better and probably easier for them to track data, so I'm surprised they don't direct their site traffic to them instead of trying to host it themselves. One of my friends even suggested that they would rather just pay the dollar or two and watch it commercial free on itunes. I'm almost inclined to agree. In lieu of these mandatory online commercials, product placement works ten times better.
Fortunately or unfortunately, NBC again has failed to meet any reasonable expectations for the tech savvy generation of which I am a part. Similar to my complaints from last year, I can only simply voice my concern on the internet with their online entertainment division, and hope that the higher ups at GE hire somebody new.
On a related note, I plan on watching Pushing Daisies at some point during my long weekend, so I'll probably write up a review about it, probably later today since my Saturday night plans have been shifted to tomorrow. And I know I said I wouldn't watch My Name is Earl again, but it was on last week and the parts I saw were funny, so I caught up with it online, and sure enough, the two episodes so far are funnier than any of the episodes last season. It's still not as good as the first season, but there is hope.
The second episode of Journeyman (Friendly Skies) was okay enough to watch another but I think the show is going to lose me within a couple weeks because it is getting harder and harder to suspend disbelief for it (I mean, disappearing from an airplane, post-Sept. 11? And next week, the '89 SF earthquake? Come on).
Heroes, however, seems to be getting better (although I concede that it sort of seems like a rehashing of the first season storyline so far).
And, on a totally unrelated note, the HR Hero Blog continues to be updated with legal insight into the zany misadventures of the Dunder Mifflin Scranton branch. Check it out if you have any interest in employment law, it's quite enlightening. Not my cup of tea, but interesting nonetheless.
Monday, September 24, 2007
Heroes season 2 premiere: Four Months Later quick review
I'm just going to put a quick note here that I just saw the Heroes season 2 premiere, "Four Months Later". Much better than the season 1 pilot, and it seems to have some interesting potential for the rest of the season. Spoilers and another paragraph or two of review follow the jump.
While the main characters all sort of just pick up "four months later," only a little of plot actually develops in the first episode. Not to be outdone by the far fetched X-Men type abilities from last season, Supercop Matt Parkman survived the four bullets to the chest he got from Sylar in the season finale, which means that in addition to hearing people's thoughts, he can now survive what most doctors would classify in their autopsy as "massive chest trauma." He's now divorced, living with Molly, the spy kid from the last couple episodes, and is part of a massive conspiracy with the doctor and Claire's dad to take down "the company." They also allude to the "bogeyman" that is supposedly worse than Sylar and I guess he will make an appearance at some point. And, as suspected in my review of the anticlimactic season finale, Sylar lives (if only in the preview for next week's episode).
Other pointless storyline: Claire meets some flying outcast at her new California high school; both Peter and his brother survive the weak bomb scare from the finale, although it's not exactly sure what has happened to either of them. Town gown relations with the Senator-Elect must have been abandoned for a more interesting storyline, and left to be explained in a future episode (no doubt to be called "Four months earlier" or something comparable to "Six Months Ago" last season). Anyway, Peter has lost his memory and is found in a box of ipods (without the ipods) at the end of the episode and the preview for next week suggests some sort of Pandora's box thing with another new Irish character. Maybe that guy's power will be to drink without getting drunk. Of course, that would require much more of a suspended disbelief than I am willing to give.
What I really found more interesting with the Heroes season 2 premiere is the current doofy plot with Hiro. As much as I hate time travel plots that inevitably fail for various philosophical reasons, I will let this one go solely because Heroes has resurrected one of my favorite tv good guy-bad guy villains, Sark (of Alias fame, David Anders) as Hiro's Japanese super samurai. Apparently Sark has powers here also (and a name to be determined). I would speculate that he's the guy that kills "the company"'s founders in present day, but that would be too obvious. I'm sure he has some sort of long life attribute, but whatever it is will appear in the weeks to come.
So, Four Months Later, sort of picks up where the last season leaves off, and seems to set up the rest of the season fairly well, or at least one can hope. Since I doubt I will review any more episodes this season unless they are really out there, I will conclude with my written plea that the season finale have a little more substance than last year's.
NBC's Chuck bucks valuable time - don't waste yours
Since Heroes comes on in about a half hour, I thought I would make a quick entry as to why NBC's Chuck sucks. I will continue to watch it tonight but will not watch another episode come 8:59, and even that is asking a lot. As I have already written about the pilot of Journeyman, I will save further comment on that show until another day, and I will write up my Heroes pilot quick review either later tonight or briefly tomorrow morning. So, without further ado, here are at least five reasons why I won't watch the Chuck show again.
Reason 1: As I had initially suspected, it is very similar in substance to the movie Johnny Mnemonic, but even worse, and I didn't think that was possible. Because I figured that my initial assumption may have been incorrect, I thought Chuck may not be the same. I was mistaken. It is worse. Of course, if you liked that movie, you may like this show. I did not, and thus, I do not.
Reason 2: It's a show about a Stanford grad who works on the "Nerd Herd" in the computer repair shop of a fictional store like Best Buy's Geek Squad. If you saw 40 Year Old Virgin, it's the same workplace but with less funny jokes. I will refrain comment on whether Stanford grads would become computer repairmen at retail stores. I'm sure there are a few.
Reason 3: As far as having a spy type comedy show, this one appears to take what Chevy Chase, Dan Akroyd, and the rest of the original SNL crew perfected in the eighties down two notches. In part, it's sort of like Alias, but not as intricate.
Reason 4: Somehow he downloads an entire computer file to his mind (like Johnny Mnemonic). Then, the CIA and NSA fight over him, which results in the super girl spy stabbing a bunch of people as she dances. Again, I find this very Alias-esque, and again, not done quite as well.
Reason 5: If it's a comedy, make it a comedy. If it's a drama, make it a drama. This combination comedy-drama just doesn't work for this type of show. A movie maybe, but X weeks of this crappy spy v. spy routine? Diffusing a bomb with porn is sort of funny, but not ha ha funny. Nor is it mildly amusing. In short, it's a crappy comedy, and a crappier drama. I have better things to spend with my time, and these are 4 more reasons than I need to not watch this show again. I can only hope this review saves other people with a less comfortable sofa couch the time and trouble.
Although I concede that his hot blond CIA sidekick (Yvonne Strzechowski) certainly looks good in lingerie, it is hardly enough to save this show. At least from my television schedule.
Bottom line: Pass. It's not even worth watching another five episodes.
Saturday, September 22, 2007
Kid Nation - eh, it was okay, but nothing to write home about
So I was able to catch the first episode of CBS's Kid Nation to see what all the hype was about. The show is sort of interesting, and has some funny parts, but I don't think it's really targeted toward the 18-49 audience. If I had to speculate, it probably hits high on the under 18 market, and 50+ market (basically, the older parents and grandparents of kids). For me, sitting well in the 18-49 range, I see it more as something I would have watched it on that Nickelodeon camp show when I was younger. I will not be watching it again.
Basically, the show is about 40 kids who have four preselected "council members" who range in age from 10-14. I would guess that 20 or 30 states are represented, and the kids' ages range from 8-15. Now, while it's certainly different in the adult world, I found it amusing that the 14 and 15 year olds wanted nothing to do with the little kid bosses who were obviously younger. As well they wouldn't; it would be like a high school student listening to a 5th grader.
The rest of the show just couldn't hold my attention. As much as I like to watch interactions between kid groups, there's a reason I didn't want to become an elementary teacher. But if you like that sort of thing, this show is probably for you. You'll like watching how the natural leaders evolve and how the appointed leaders quickly learn that you have to lead by example. And you'll see the typical assertions of male and female dominance. And the gold star thing? It's motivational, but kind of hokey. And you give it to the girl who decides to shirk her duties by dancing in the street for money to earn $3 for a bike? But hey, this is kids we're dealing with. I'm glad one of them knew himself well enough to get the heck out of there after three or four days. Good for him.
What parents would send their kids to this "extreme" camp, just to get on tv? That's what I want to know.
Saturday, September 15, 2007
Journeyman Pilot Review – 7/10 stars, give it the six episode run
Thanks to NBC’s partnership with Amazon (and I’m not sure why NBC would want to abandon their partnership with iTunes, given that it’s the market leader and all), I was able to watch, for free, the pilot episode of NBC’s Journeyman, A Love of a Lifetime, which will premiere on NBC September 24. You can watch the pilot also, by visiting the Amazon site for the show. Keep in mind that the installation of Amazon’s Unbox Video program (Net Framework 2.0) takes a considerable amount of time (almost 15 minutes, and I have a fast computer), so, as the program states, you will need to "please be patient" as the program installs. More on the merits of Amazon's jump into the digital tv market shortly.
Quick review: Journeyman starts off a little bit slow, but after 30 minutes, definitely gets more interesting. Setting aside the handful of inherent problems I'll get to in a minute, it's worth watching the pilot, and I'll continue to watch the next five episodes to see if it gets better.
My four sentence summary of the show itself (borrowing a theme from a tv show with an obviously similar plot): Tired of his job as a beat reporter in San Francisco, Mr. Dan Vassar (Kevin McKidd (Rome)) heads home one night to return to his wife and kid, and vanished. He awoke to find himself trapped in the past, forced to use antiquated technology like pay phones, and driven by an unknown force to change history for the better. His only guide on this journey is his wife, who comes to believe his time traveling tales, and his brother, a cop who hates the fact that Dan married his ex-girlfriend. And so, Mr. Vassar finds himself traveling back and forth through the past and present, watching old sporting events he knows he has seen before but for unknown reasons is unable to gamble on, and hoping that each time that his adventures are good enough that NBC will renew the show.
Spoilers and my review of the pilot continue.... In the pilot, Vassar, a (insert boring adjective here) reporter, finds himself traveling back and forth in time through 1980s and 1990s San Francisco. On one of his first "trips," he happens to see someone standing in front of a trolley and saves his life. Flash forward to the future and a simple blackberry search through Google: the person was real and alive. Maybe it wasn't a dream but just some bad sushi.
While Dan is gone though, his wife freaks out that he has disappeared for two days and all of his friends and family think he's on drugs when he tries to explain where he had been. Surprisingly he doesn't get fired from his job, and they even try and have an intervention. As he fruitlessly tries to explain, these trips seem to last only as long as commercial breaks, but by the way, he has also seen his dead ex-girlfriend. This revelation only makes his brother madder that Dan broke the cardinal "bros before hos" rule (and committed it against his brother on top of it). Dan's travels back in time come at rather inopportune moments (e.g., when he is driving a car, which subsequently crashes into a pole as he vanishes). Likewise, he wakes up back in time in even more perilous situations (e.g., on trolley tracks with a train coming). These antics quickly become annoying.
While he's back in time, you learn that he used to be engaged to a smokin' hot lawyer (Livia Beale, played by Moon Bloodgood) who he thought died on a plane crash, but apparently is a time traveler also. (This part of the storyline made a brief appearance, but looks more like a potential future storyline setup than anything else). In another leap, you learn that while he was engaged to this hottie, his current (and future) wife is dating his brother, but obviously has the hots for him. In the future you learn that his cop brother resents him for the fact that after the lawyer allegedly died, Vassar married his brother's girlfriend, and shortly thereafter had a kid. And I thought Heroes had come up with some doofy storylines. His kid also plays the piano, and is essentially meaningless to the storyline except to show that he does feel guilty when he goes back in time and his ex-girlfriend strips down in front of him. To which he says, in the most politically correct way he can, "I have work to do." Literally, unfortunately or fortunately depending on how you look at it, and he gets up and leaves.
The gist of his first time traveling episode is that he saves some guy's life, then on trip two, he convinces the guy's girlfriend to keep her baby and marry him. When he goes back to the future and finds out that the wife and baby are killed, he returns in time to stop the guy from killing them by, and I'm not making this up, yelling his name so that he turns around just long enough that a bus hits and kills him. I would say, how ironic, but it really is just an example of lazy writing. When he goes back to the future, he discovers that the son grows up to be a doctor and saves some kids on a bus. Oh, he also buries a box in his backyard, which he digs up in the end of the episode so that his wife believes him since all this time traveling nonsense has led her to want to divorce our wayward reporter. Cue cheesy music and curtains until next week.
Things that were funny, however, include what I am pretty sure is an iPhone that he keeps carrying around that (correctly) gets no service when he goes back in time. There are also a few references to old technology, like those giant cell/cordless phones you would see on old episodes of Saved by the Bell, and old events, like T.O.'s gamewinning catch when he played for the 49ers. There is a Y2K joke which would have been funny, but I don't think it was really integrated into the culture in 1997. Maybe that was just on the east coast though. Nevertheless, the show has potential, and I'll watch a few more episodes to be sure that it is good and not some piece of junk. The acting and storylines aren't that endearing or spectacular, so I'm not going to be surprised if this show winds up sucking.
Like in Heroes, the problem with time traveling generally is that if you change one thing, it theoretically would change a lot more than one thing. The Star Trek Next Generation episode Tapestry exemplifies my point. Nonetheless, our time traveling reporter doesn't do too much changing of his own life though (yet) or uses his knowledge of the future for his own financial gain (yet), and I suppose that as long as they try and avoid making the show all about that or trying to trade his wife for his ex-time traveling girlfriend, I can suspend disbelief long enough to say that the show is pretty alright, and worth watching at least once, if not more than once. I'll even keep my mouth shut about the fact that they are "borrowing" ideas and general themes from other old shows like Quantum Leap or Early Edition. So, the bottom line is, I'm going to give it the six-episode run. It's too bad I can't go back in time like this reporter guy in case this show turns out to suck.
A final word on Amazon's Unbox video program: It's no iTunes video. While you can watch video before it is completed downloading, which is good, there are a few kinks that Amazon still needs to work out. Namely, the video, because it is some sort of streaming video, which has the tendency to be quite choppy. This choppiness, more than anything else, is highly distracting, and I never noticed this when viewing similar shows online through NBCs or other network websites, or even through itunes last year.
I thought the choppiness may have been that I had other programs running, but that was not the case. So, my advice to NBC is to not shoot the iTunes distributing chain in the foot just yet; regarding Amazon, they need to jump this version out of beta if they want to have any success in this particular market segment. Part of Amazon's problem may be because the program itself requires a whopping 200 MB of disk space, and the downloaded videos approach or exceed 5 GB in size. On the other hand, I take full credit and announce that it is with great pleasure that Amazon took me up on my October 2006 suggestion to jump into this market and made this particular episode available. I am still waiting for my check though.
Friday, August 31, 2007
New Fall TV review/schedule
As many of these blog entries have shown, I certainly do love to watch tv, particularly comedies and dramas. Since I briefly recapped last season's shows in May, I figured I would preview this season's shows in September. So, here is my quick run-down of what I'm going to be watching in between NFL games. Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on how you look at it), Fox passed on Supreme Courtships. Maybe the next time around they will try it as a comedy.
Although I hear that some of the new fall shows are available via their respective torrents, none of the shows I have any desire to see have done what Heroes did last year and did an early premiere online. Thus, all of my thoughts on the new shows are based off the commercials I have seen on tv or the internet.
The quick rundown is that out of all the new fall shows, I will give Journeyman a chance, and maybe also Cavemen and Back to You on occasion. Overall, I'm not overly optimistic about new shows for this fall. Only time will tell whether my predictions are correct, and more in depth reviews of one or more of these shows may possibly follow.
In & Out (by network):
NBC:
In:
Journeyman. This is some sort of pseudo-time traveling show, which means it has the potential to be interesting, so it might be good enough to watch once or twice. I just wonder if it's going to be like a tv version of The Butterfly Effect. Maybe it will surprise me, but I'm not holding my breath. It has a good timeslot going for it (it premieres right after Heroes on Sept. 24), so I'll give it a shot if I'm not too overwhelmed with work by then. There's a 50/50 chance of me watching it past six episodes; whether the rest of the Neilson audience gets to do the same remains to be seen. It probably will survive at least this season if Heroes' success is any indication of what people are willing to watch instead of MNF.
Heroes Season 2: Like many other Heroes fans who I've spoken to, the finale certainly left a lot to be desired. But it did manage to save itself in the last six or so episodes of last season (as compared to the first few), so I'll probably watch it again, at least for a few episodes. Heroes returns on Sept. 24. In the interim, the Heroes season 2 trailer can be found here.
The Office: Premieres September 27 and has moved to the coveted Thursday night 9 PM timeslot. Excellent. Apparently there will be 30 episodes this season. Also excellent.
Medium: Returns in January on Fridays. Although the show began to lose me by the end of the season, I'll probably watch a few more episodes before giving up on it completely.
Pass:
Bionic Woman. Nah. It doesn't look bad though, so I predict it will be picked up, just not by me.
Life. I have no desire to watch another cop show, particularly one about a cop trying to figure out who framed him "after years of false imprisonment." I would rather watch Law & Order (which I don't). Prediction: Probably will not be around that long.
My Name is Earl. I've already explained my reasons for this here.
ABC:
In:
Lost. Of course it won't premiere until February or March, and I can only hope it returns to its 9 PM timeslot for its 16-episode season.
Maybe but probably not:
Cavemen (see long preview here): Although I do want to have a new comedy to replace My Name is Earl, and I may give Cavemen a chance once, I probably won't watch it more than that unless it's great. If ABC really wants it to succeed, they should put it on Thursday at either 8 PM or 8:30 so I have something to watch before the Office comes on. I predict that it will have as much success as the George Lopez show, and perhaps more if its timeslot is changed.
This show warrants two paragraphs because before it even starts, it has a black mark against it. I haven't been overly impressed with the Geico cavemen commercials, and I am passing that neutral to negative bias onto the show. And since I'm sure Geico is hoping to generate big business from sponsoring (either directly or indirectly) a tv show based on its advertising campaign, that's just one more reason for me not to watch it. In the hopes that maybe someone working for Geico comes across this entry and can do something about it, I will say that I think the Geico cavemen commercials could be much funnier than they currently are. Maybe they will put one on during the Superbowl to impress us all.
Pass:
Chuck. From the commercials, this show looks like it will be some sort of drama-comedy that will turn Johnny Mnemonic into a tv show. Somehow they think if they throw a hot blond into the show that will help it succeed. A hot actress didn't work for the movie; I highly doubt it will work for this particular show. Thus, my prediction for "Chuck" is self-explanatory.
Samantha Who?: Monday night has enough going on that I don't think a comedy will work. Particularly a comedy about an amnesia victim. This show won't be around very long.
Pushing Daisies. This show is about a guy who can bring people back to life in order to collect reward money or to solve the crime. I get enough of this type of show from Medium. Or even Heroes, if I'm correct in assuming this show is about someone discovering the potential within. I found one blog that gave it a ringing endorsement, but without any real substance in the review, I find it lacking in believability. ABC seems to be able to pull rabbits out of its hat sometimes, so this will probably survive the slaughter of the rest of the fall lineup.
Private Practice. This is a spin-off of Grey's Anatomy, which I never got into. I'm sure if you like Grey's Anatomy, this show will be just as good and do as well as the first CSI spin-off. I don't watch CSI either, so someone else would know better than I on how well this show will do.
Big Shots: I think the preview speaks for itself, but this show is about a bunch of rich power players and their tales of woe. Having joined a profession of these "types," I have no interest in watching a dramatization of it on tv. I'm sure I won't be the only one. Between this and Pushing Daisies, I think Pushing Daisies will succeed and this one will not.
Boston Legal. It may be still on, but I have explained my reasons why I think this show has ran its course in this previous entry, and I will not be watching it.
Fox:
In:
Sarah Connor Chronicles (premiers probably after the Superbowl) - I'm a fan of the Terminator movies, so I may watch a couple episodes of this. It could be really cool, or awful. The Sarah Connor Chronicles trailer can be found on this blogger's page. Prediction: Will be picked up but probably only for a season, at most.
Maybe:
Back to You. This is a comedy, so that's good, but it's a comedy on Fox and not NBC, so I'm a little leary. It has Kelsey Grammer, which is good, but also Patricia Heaton, which I'm not sure is a plus. As a result, it may be worth tuning into. We shall see. Prediction: Will last as long and do as well as Till Death Do Us Part.
Pass:
K-Ville. Another cop show? Give me a break.
24. I'm going to give Jack Bauer the day off when it comes back on. If it turns into a movie though, I'll pay the ten bucks to go see it. Hopefully it's not as much of a letdown as The Sentinel.
CBS:
In:
Jericho moves to Fridays at 9, which may be a kiss of death time slot for this great show. Not sure when it starts, but I'll keep watching it probably until the end, at least on the internet. Hopefully when and if CBS does ultimately kill it, ABC or Fox will pick it up and give it the justice it deserves. If you haven't watched this show and had time, watch the entire season 1 online through CBS's website.
Maybe, but probably not: Kid Nation. This show has potential, but I don't think I'm in the target market. If I was a network executive, I would want this showing Fridays at 8 PM and would heavily promote it to the 18 and under demographic. As it currently appears, I could care less about how kids think they can make things better. I get enough of that from reading briefs from lawyers or watching Campaign '08 on tv. Prediction: Probably will stick around but not for the reasons I have stated.
Pass:
Cane. Although this one could be good, I just can't get into another show that requires me to watch it every week to follow. Sugar as the new oil? It just doesn't grab me. Prediction: Has the same potential as Studio 60 or The Black Donnellys, but I think this one will be picked up for a little longer.
Moonlight. I think this is about some sort of werewolf or vampire man. I think that about sums it up. Prediction: May last as long as Ghost Whisperer, but probably not.
HBO:
Curb Your Enthusiasm starts up in September, so I'll be watching that. I think Entourage only has a couple episodes left this "season."
CW:
Pass: Smallville. I've had enough. Clark is a wimp. Clark is mad. Clark wants Lana. Clark doesn't want Lana. Clark hates Lex. Clark doesn't hate Lex. I get it. The show sucks.
In: Nothing. Who watches the CW? If you liked the OC though, supposedly Gossip Girl is by the same guy. I never did, so I won't.
As far as my predictions for last season, I batted a thousand:
Heroes: Correct that it had the potential to survive the six episode run and it did. See my review of the pilot and the flack I took for it here. Also correct were my October predictions about the finale.
Shark: Correct and still around it seems (although I rarely watch the show).
Jericho: Correct in part. I still say it needs a better timeslot.
Justice: Correct that the show sucked and it would be canceled.
Supreme Courtships: Correct in my implication that this show would probably fail.
24: Correct that the ratings would not be as good this season. See review of the season 6 premiere part 1 and part 2.
Enough tv for now.
Read more!
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Fox's New Amsterdam show mirrors a book without any credit
Being one that can appreciate the important of copyright and giving credit where credit is due, I always get a laugh out of when the news reports the coincidental nature of two different works, particularly when one work is strikingly similar to another's. Sort of like the Offspring's Why Don't You Get a Job and the Beatles' Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da. For Fox's new show, New Amsterdam (premiering in January 2008), CNN reports that it bears an uncanny resemblance to the plot and character in a Pete Hamill book. See Author suspicious of similar character on TV. (Update 2/19/08: This CNN link is dead, but I've put some new ones in the comment to this entry).
As the article reports, the author is simply laughing it off, and I can only hope that Fox or the show's producers at least give him a little credit or a piece of the small pie this show is likely to bring in. Speaking of which...
I think the whole New Amsterdam show, based on this CNN article and a couple of webpages that appear to give it positive reviews sans substantive evaluation, seems very similar to the old Highlander tv series. Immortal person, fighting for honor, looking for love, that sort of thing - why not just turn him into a vampire. Or make it a comedy instead. Regardless, because it appears that creativity in Hollywood seems to consist of recycling old ideas and lazily creating sequels, I think I will simply pass on this show when it finally does air. Absent some sort of incredible previews or reviews, I would suspect that many will do the same. Perhaps, however, it will be picked up on the Sci-Fi channel or Spike instead, and die its slow death there.
Read more!
