View Full Version : Hot Off The Press! The Latest Television News and Info
A Critical View
Desperate to figure out this dud
By Maureen Ryan from the Chicago Tribune TV blog May 1, 206
If I call "Desperate Housewives" the worst show on the broadcast networks, you’ll probably think I’m just doing it just for effect.
And to a certain degree, I am. Let’s face it, how could "Housewives" possibly be worse than "The George Lopez Show" or "Ghost Whisperer" or (if this show is still even on) "Pepper Dennis"?
Well, it can be, and it is. And I’ll make my argument as to why I think that is in a minute.
But first, let me say this: “Desperate Housewives” is the worst show on the broadcast networks.
I will concede these things: The actors on the show, who are, in most cases, far better than the material they are given, are professionals. They enunciate all the words well, do their best with what they’re given and often make it better than it is.
As Susan, Teri Hatcher can be winningly gawky and funny and even inspires sympathy. As Lynette, Felicity Huffman brings wonderfully grounded, sympathetic empathy and intelligence to the brittle proceedings. And Marcia Cross’ sly, witty, perfectly calibrated portrayal of the uptight Bree can be a treat.
Still.
Those positives often come about despite, not because of, the scripts. The occasional good moments -- and there are some -- only happen when these skilled actors are given story lines that are not bland, irritating and harder to sit through than a marathon of failed NBC shows.
I won’t pretend that I’ve seen every episode of "Housewives." And I’ve made it clear from the start (including here and here) that I never thought that the show’s awkward mix of melodrama and comedy quite worked.
But, because they pay me to watch TV, I feel a duty to, on occasion, check in on shows I don’t particularly like, to see what’s going on and whether there’s anything new to like or at least comment on. And hey, “Housewives” is still a hot show. I want to watch what people like and try to figure out why they like it.
But to be frank, after watching a few recent episodes of “Housewives,” I can’t understand what prompts millions of people to tune in to the show every week. Is ABC putting something in the water? Do people just turn their sets on in anticipation of “Grey’s Anatomy,” which airs after “Housewives”? I don’t get it.
Let’s fact it, if the plots on this show appeared on “According to Jim,” we’d roll our eyes and think they were utterly dopey. But I guess when you pad these moronic plots out into an hourlong drama, add a few catfights and some gunplay, well, they’re just as compelling as can be.
Let’s examine Sunday’s episode of the show (and don’t read on if you haven’t seen that episode yet). We’re supposed to believe that Lynette, who’s returned to a corporate career after an unhappy stint as a stay-at-home mom, would teach her boss how he can use raunchy instant messaging to seduce his wife (and that she would send saucy messages to the boss' wife, masquerading as him at his request when he was called away). We're supposed to buy that Bree would be running around with a stringy-haried man with multiple addictions, including a sex addiction, and would be doing her level best to get him to resume his depraved sex life.
I don’t mind silly plots if they’re entertaining. The ones mentioned here are not only not very believable, they’re just not that interesting. And they’re not just filler, they’re filler plots that are full of clichés and lack any real character development or dramatic tension.
And the Bree story, in any case, has reduced the fine Lee Tergesen, who plays Bree’s troubled addict friend, to reciting lines such as, “It’s dangerous to care about me. A lot of people have over the years and they’ve all ended up getting hurt.”
Oh, but never mind if your attention wanes when such dialogue hits you like an anvil to the solar plexus. By the end of the episode, Bree’s waving around a gun, so that ought to get your attention. She’s got a gun because that crazy kid who’s been kept hidden inside the Applewhite’s house has gotten into her house and is apparently menacing her daughter, oh no!
Yes, that mystery -- what are the Applewhites hiding? -- is still hanging around. It was introduced at the very end of the show’s first season, and the writers are still stringing this sorry bit of melodrama along; now it features a screechy subplot involving Bree’s daughter and one of the Applewhite sons. The whole thing is so unspeakable boring that I can’t even write about it any more, for fear that my brain will shut down in protest and I will lapse into a coma.
And let’s face one fact: Eva Longoria is extraordinary at getting press for herself -- the one magazine she does not appear to have been in yet is Cat Fancy, and I’m sure her representatives are working on that. But she’s only average as an actress. Sure, she can do the snippy stuff and the semi-comedic bits with aplomb. But, handed Class A dreck or just mediocre material -- as they are so often -- Hatcher, Huffman and Cross generally make something more of it, to their eternal credit.
Longoria, given a chance to display some real chops, often doesn’t (or can’t) step up. Witness the scene in Sunday’s episode when the authorities took her baby away (in another plotline that had all the substance of an issue of InTouch Weekly). Granted, she had to recite lines like this: “This is our baby. No! We've been feeding her we've been bathing her, we wake up in the middle of the night and we rock her ... You can't take her away, we've already fallen in love with her.”
They are painfully clunky lines, but they were delivered in such an overwrought, shallow manner that they became positively painful.
I don’t know if it’ll stave off any of the hate mail I’ll no doubt get for this review, but I’ll say it again: I do think “Housewives” has a talented, even gifted cast (Richard Burgi, as Susan’s ex-husband, Karl, deserves a special shout-out for his impeccable comic timing).
It’s because of the talents of the cast (including the great Alfre Woodard, who mostly goes to waste on this show) that I must take the writers of the rudderless "Housewives" to task. Misusing these actors is a greater crime than putting out a show like "According to Jim," which aims for inoffensive mediocrity and more or less succeeds.
But it was obvious by the middle of the first season of the show that the writers really didn’t know what to do with the "Housewives" actors and where to go with their characters' stories. Now that they’re deep into the second season, the powers behind "Housewives" appear to be even less in control of where the show's going.
The show is adrift in silly contrivances (as opposed to inventive situations), painful dialogue and obvious wheel-spinning. The solution to ending or spicing up any boring story line is just to inject some over-the-top melodrama or at the very least, have various characters in floods of tears or running about screeching. Or, failing all that, have Teri Hatcher fall down.
But never mind. “Housewives” is still an undisputed hit, and no doubt will continue to be one.
Why that is, I have no idea. I’ve never seen the appeal of this show: In my opinion, the comedy isn’t funny enough and the drama (or melodrama) not compelling enough to put it on my must-see list.
For two years, I’ve been desperate to figure out the appeal of this show. And I simply can’t.
Which means, “Housewives,” you win.
http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/entertainment_tv/2006/05/if_i_call_despe.html#more
TV Notebook
From 'Hill Street' to the White House
By Ann Oldenburg USA TODAY May 1, 2006
Daniel J. Travanti, 66, won two Emmys as Capt. Frank Furillo on Steven Bochco's groundbreaking cop series Hill Street Blues, which aired on NBC from 1981 to 1987. Since then he has been mostly out of the limelight — until tonight, when he returns to TV as the president on Prison Break (Fox, 8 ET/PT). USA TODAY asks a few quick questions of Hill Street's "Pizzaman":
Q: It has been almost 20 years since Hill Street Blues ended. What have you been up to personally and professionally?
A: Theater. A great deal of theater. Theater is smoke. When you go to the theater in America, you disappear. For a long time I sabotaged my own career. I'm a charming fellow when I'm in a good mood, otherwise I'm impossible. ... I even stopped doing interviews. All they want to talk about is the past.
I'm in good shape. I take very good care. I was a late bloomer in the industry, and I'm still blooming. One big break? Forget it. I'm due for another one.
Q: What effect did Hill Street have on your life?
A: It elevated us. It shot us all up. We broke through the paper barrier of obscurity — boom, suddenly they know you. And we were doing this lovely, remarkable material. I don't think there's stuff as good since. Not as complex, not as deep. We had goofy humor, satire, social satire apart from satire. We were intelligent, moving, touching, sentimental. We were wrenching and suspenseful. I could say that and brag about it, because I didn't write it. The producers and writers and I had a mutual love affair. I was working with a glorious group of talented people I admired. That's the ideal situation, which you may likely not have again. It's rare.
Q: We have an evil president on 24, a groundbreaking president on Commander in Chief, and an honor-bound president on The West Wing. What kind of president do you play on Prison Break?
A: He's strong-minded, and he's opposing the vice president — who's a lovely human being, Patricia Wettig. ... We had this one scene in which I gave her a stern warning about my support. I don't know who this president is supposed to be. They dressed me up, gave me a nice suit, Hugo Boss. I said, "You're trying to make me look like Clinton? I don't have as much hair." We had a lovely time.
Q: What are some of your favorite TV shows now?
A: I don't watch any series television. I haven't seen much of Prison Break. I don't have HBO, which I refuse to subscribe to for one or two shows. It makes me laugh when they sell the notion of 900 channels. If they said, "Here's a network which will give you the entire Library of Congress or the Met in New York," I'd say, "Really?" There's a whole bunch of good stuff there. When they say you can have all the television, I just laugh. You mean more mediocrity? That's a junk pile with a few gems. Most of what human beings do is mediocre or worse — in every enterprise.
Q: Do you hope to do more TV in the future?
A: I need one more big success. Anywhere. What television would get for me is greater opportunities. ... I've never been complacent. I've only always wanted to do the very best. To my regret, I haven't done a great deal of the very best because it's hard to come by. ... I'm staying in the best shape I can be in, just in case somebody wants to write that president as a major character in the series. Ha.
http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/news/2006-05-01-travanti_x.htm
THE CHANGING WAYS WE WATCH TV
TV or more TV?
That is the question now that you can watch your favorite shows on your computer, cell phone or iPod
By Diane Werts Newsday Staff Writer April 30, 2006
Wanna watch TV? That simple decision used to mean settling into the living room sofa watching something currently being aired by the broadcast networks. Then cable and VCRs gave us what seemed huge leaps forward in channel choice and time-shifting options.
But that's nothing compared to the way viewing technology is exploding almost continuously today. Now the desire to watch TV can jump-start a litany of choices.
Like where to watch - at home, at work or school, in transit.
How to watch - via the TV set, the computer screen, a portable device like an iPod, even a cell phone.
And when - as the show is broadcast; catching up with on-demand via digital cable; searching out an online download or stream; waiting for a show to be released on DVD.
Who knew an easy time killer like TV could get so complicated?
Changing the way we watch
At least that's the way it seems to many viewers who haven't gotten past their VCR clock flashing 12:00. Now they're hearing almost daily about new developments in TV technology that promise to change the way we watch. Every time yet another Big Announcement heralds the high-tech future of viewing, the mushrooming options seem yet more intimidating.
"You know the word caffeinated? It's like we're gadget-nated," says Phillip Swann, a media analyst whose TVPredictions.com site keeps track of evolving TV technology. "There's an infrastructure in place to create a perception that these things are taking over the world," Swann says. "It's because the people who come up with these things are so hyped up on gadgets and technology, everything that gets launched is the Next Big Thing."
But is it really? Should you jump on board to avoid getting left behind? Or should you not believe the hype?
The ball really started rolling in October, when Apple released its video-capable portable iPod and ABC offered downloads of "Lost" and "Desperate Housewives," commercial-free for $1.99 per episode. That was the first volley from Hollywood to provide prized current network content in an easily accessible way on a new format with a sky-high "cool" factor.
That put an official imprimatur on what some tech-heads were already doing informally, if not illegally: file-sharing video content, such as current TV episodes, over the Internet - the same way music fans had swapped song MP3s online in digital form with tools such as Napster. Such underground downloading was hard for legal rights-holders to police on the Internet's wild-West frontier.
"That's part of the reason why Walt Disney Company moved forward with an Apple iTunes deal," says Albert Cheng, executive vice president of digital media at Disney-ABC Television Group. "A lot of piracy was happening, and we as a company had to take a mindshift and say, we cannot deny that this technology is changing the way that people are consuming media. And we need to be able to partner with someone who's trying to legitimize platforms."
With video iPod content tied into the online behemoth iTunes Music Store, ABC's move brought episodic video on the Internet to the attention of millions of computer users who may not have been plugged into previous tools, or even aware that such TV content existed online. To tap the growing interest, CBS tried its own tack last fall, offering fee-based Web screenings of new "Survivor" episodes immediately after their airing, while NBC and a slew of cable channels joined ABC on the iPod bandwagon, where content could be watched either on computer or the portable device. Networks also tested Web viewing as a promotional tool. This spring, NBC made its new Dick Wolf drama, "Conviction," available as a free iPod download prior to its premiere. In the biggest news yet, ABC announced a Monday start for a two-month experiment streaming recent episodes of "Lost" and other series, for free with embedded commercials.
Making this technically possible was the pervasive penetration of home broadband service via cable modems and high-speed phone lines, which could move digital information fast enough to enable high-quality video worth watching. Nielsen/NetRatings reported that by 2005, 68 percent of home internet users had an "always on" broadband connection. That shift away from slower dial-up modems made downloads from iTunes a matter of minutes, rather than hours, and meant that video streamed from a Web site could better approximate TV quality, even if only in a small window on the computer screen.
Where the eyeballs are
TV's name brands began creating broadband video "channels," often aimed at a younger, more Web-friendly audience. In 2005, MTV launched its Overdrive Web channel with videos, interviews and concerts, while Nickelodeon gave kids TurboNick. Others tried online fee-per-month subscription services: Court TV Extra offered streaming trial coverage, CNN Pipeline provided four online streams of news. AOL hyped its March launch of In2TV, with dozens of vintage series such as "Kung Fu" and "Welcome Back, Kotter" available for ad-supported viewing anytime. Google and Yahoo jumped in with video search engines to help users find what they wanted to watch.
"If you're a marketer, you need to be where the eyeballs are," says David Katz, head of sports and entertainment for Yahoo! Media Group, who came to the Internet company after directing interactive ventures for CBS. "Clearly, there is a shift of usage and time spent moving to the Internet." In other words, TV today isn't being supplanted by the Internet, or iPods, or even cell phones, where wireless providers have lately been promoting TV content on video services such as Sprint PCS Vision and Verizon's V CAST. So far, these platforms have relied more on short clips and other media "snacks" than on the full-episode main courses at which TV excels. For now, living-room viewing is being supplemented and, the networks hope, bolstered by all these new devices. "It actually drives more traffic to our network shows," says ABC/Disney's Cheng. The iTunes venture, where "Lost" is typically one of the video bestsellers, "has not taken away viewers at all from our shows, but actually increased our viewership." NBC also noticed a TV ratings uptick after "The Office" appeared on iTunes.
Increasing loyalty
CBS' digital media vice president for wireless Cyriac Roeding agrees the new delivery platforms help to satisfy TV viewers in different ways. "Even those people that are really 'CSI' lovers, they don't make every episode," Roeding says. "So if they have a chance to catch up with it on a cell phone, for example, or on the Internet, it actually helps us to increase the loyalty of this audience segment."
That's why in the wake of last fall's video iPod excitement, CBS partnered with the largest U.S. cable operator Comcast to bring some of its hit shows to another new viewing platform. Cable TV systems had been trying to expand their digital cable services by trumpeting video-on-demand (VOD), the anytime viewing option with VCR-like functionality. But content available on VOD had tended to be fringe cable series, with the occasional big draw like "The Sopranos" for HBO subscribers. TV's big network hits were conspicuously absent. Then in November, CBS made episodes of "Survivor," "CSI" and other hits available on-demand to Comcast digital cable homes right after airing, at 99 cents for 24 hours' easy access through their cable remotes. NBC prepared to do the same in May, and Comcast says ABC and Fox are about to come on board. And let's not forget Howard Stern creating his own on-demand subscription channel last fall, selling his fans unfettered access to his explicit content.
Measuring usage
But are on-demand and online really the seismic shift in viewing that media coverage seems to portend? How many Americans are actually using them? Or iPods? Or cell-phone video? Quantifying any of these new delivery platforms remains difficult. Apple does not make iTunes sales numbers public. But Nielsen, which already tallies usage of both television and the Internet, will expand its sampling coverage to include on-demand viewing starting this month, according to Nielsen Media Research's Sara Erichson, general manager for national services. She added that the company is also working on prototypes for measuring usage of "many, many devices," including cell phones, iPods and streaming on the Net.
The current flurry of high-tech innovation seems to be outpacing viewer desires and the ability to follow the fast-moving developments. "Basically, some products are being pushed forward," says Swann of TVPredictions.com, "not so much because consumers are rising up demanding it, but because the technology could create it."
Sorting out the possibilities is just beginning. "The future is to combine these media and bring them together in a well-functioning way," CBS' Roeding says. "It is about creating something that makes sense together rather than these individual platforms that might be hyped one day and are gone the other."
Blurring the line
Yahoo's Katz says his company now has an entire team "whose job it is to combine the broadband space with the living room and the wireless and to create the plumbing and the connectivity between all these worlds." He notes: "If you look at high-definition TV sets, they all have Ethernet jacks in the back for you to put a high-speed connection in. ... That then kind of blurs the line. Are you getting content from a network? Are you getting content from a Web site? Does it really matter to you?"
Not if you can watch what you want, when you want, where you want, and how you want. Predictions king Swann thinks the promise of on-demand and the Internet lie in remote servers' ability to store limitless programs. "I don't mean things done in the last year, I mean things done for the past 30 years," Swann says. "There's too much revenue to be generated out of things that have already been produced. Everybody has a certain specific interest or niche, and you can accumulate all those niches of content." Meanwhile, viewers will never have to miss a current show, not with handy new options of watching through computer windows and portable devices like cell phones.
Convenience is what all the new developments come down to.
"There is a time to lean back in the living room and watch something together," CBS' Roeding says. "There is a time for me to watch something on a very tiny screen on the cell phone if I love my show and I don't want to miss it. And there is a time when I go to the Internet to find specific content."
That means TV as we know it isn't so much being transformed as cementing its own appeal. Swann is dismissive of other forecasts that viewing will change drastically with these new options of interactivity or portability. Back in 2000, he wrote the book "TV dot COM: The Future of Interactive Television," in which he predicted the tube would be used to personalize content, to "play trivia, order pizzas and access sports statistics. And that's proven not to be successful," he admits. "I have learned my lesson. I was buying into some of the hype." He warns today's viewers not to.
http://www.newsday.com/entertainment/ny-fftv4718341apr30,0,3117191,print.story?coll=ny-entertainment-headlines
THE CHANGING WAYS WE WATCH TV
It's no longer a matter of hit or miss
With cable's VOD, you can't miss a hit, even if you don't see it when it first airs
By Diane Werts Newsday Staff Writer May 1, 2006
Watching TV shows on your own schedule sounds great, doesn't it?
If you remember to set the VCR, that is. Or the TiVo. Or the DVD recorder, or that nifty digital video recorder that came in your souped-up new cable converter.
But now you can miss a show completely, yet still have a catch-up opportunity as simple as clicking on your cable remote.
Video on demand (VOD) has become one of the big selling points for cable operators over competing satellite service. The two share the clarity and capacity of digital delivered video/audio, but satellite lacks the instantaneous two-way information flow that enables digital cable subscribers to click an on-screen menu to choose from a variety of shows available for viewing anytime. The home remote then sends commands to the cable operator's head-end video servers allowing VCR-like functionality for viewers to pause, rewind and rewatch programs stored there.
But which programs? VOD use has often seemed stalled over digital cable's first decade by the lack of big-name programs to drive viewer interest. On-demand offered mostly the same sort of theatrical films available in scheduled pay-per-view airings, at the same sort of charge. Even when TV programs appeared as free VOD content, they tended to be niche-oriented shows from basic cable networks like HGTV or Nickelodeon, or thrifty new productions like those in Cablevision's Mag Rack suite of categories devoted to fitness, cars, weddings and other personal interests.
High-profile HBO hits like "The Sopranos" and "Sex and the City" finally began arriving in VOD lineups in 2001, often with the cable system charging extra above the initial monthly subscription for HBO service. But prime-time network shows on VOD were MIA.
That changed last November when CBS announced a series deal with Comcast, the nation's largest cable operator (serving much of New Jersey and parts of Connecticut). Four popular series - "Survivor," "CSI," "NCIS" and "The Amazing Race" - would be available after an episode's initial network broadcast. Comcast customers in markets with CBS-owned stations could pay 99 cents to watch it to their heart's content over a 24-hour period. NBC soon announced it, too, would go VOD with Comcast this month; its slate adds late-night comedy and daytime soaps for free, along with cable hits from its Bravo, USA, Sci Fi and other owned channels.
Howard Stern, unbleeped
Time Warner tried another on-demand tack last fall, testing a Start Over service allowing subscribers in South Carolina to restart programs from 60 broadcast and cable channels so long as the show was still airing. And VOD got perhaps its loudest publicity push when Howard Stern launched his own subscription on-demand cable channel last November. Stern fans had long seen his shock jock antics in censored form on E! cable. Now an initial monthly fee of $10 would provide the unbleeped, unblurred bawdiness of Stern's new Sirius show at the viewer's command, with fresh content appearing daily.
By the end of 2005, Nielsen Media Research estimated VOD was available in about 20 percent of U.S. TV homes. (Cablevision claims the industry's highest rate of digital penetration with VOD in two-thirds of its 3 million cable homes in the tristate market.) Prime-time use of on-demand has increased sevenfold in the two years since Nielsen began measuring tuning to the service. And the demographic using VOD most is the advertiser-coveted 18-34 age range. These are also prime moviegoers, who may have quickly adopted VOD because they'd previously ordered pay-per-view screenings. That's still where cable operators are making their VOD money, some using extensive free TV content to familiarize users with the system in hopes they'll start paying to watch movies on-demand rather than deal with video rental. (The trade publication Adult Video News estimates adult content generates 40 percent of cable's VOD revenue.)
But if Comcast's CBS and NBC deals are any indication - and the cabler says other networks will soon sign on - TV hits may become another driver of VOD use. That likely means commercials will follow. While lots of programs, including those 99-cent CBS prime-time hits, are commercial-free, many of VOD's free shows include ads (although Cablevision's two-dozen Mag Rack categories are only beginning to).
Yet on-demand could well end up being a creative tool as well as a commercial one. The viewer-controlled environment has proven ideal for certain types of TV programs, including exercise shows (available whenever there's workout time), technology tips (right when your computer is acting up) or cooking classes (recipe steps can be performed in pause-and-resume fashion). Narrow interests that might never rate full-time linear channels are easily served with less extensive set-up costs in VOD.
Slaying the Nielsen monster
It's possible to envision more ventures like Stern's, providing all sorts of programs directly to motivated consumers, by fee or subscription, freed from having to satisfy the Nielsen monster that's devoured so many low-rated series with small but devoted audiences. Without taxing cable resources like bandwidth to serve only a sliver of total viewership, VOD provides an economical, nimble way to more personally satisfy a larger aggregate audience.
The remote-controlled concept may eventually even replace those ubiquitous VCRs, TiVos and DVRs. Cablevision is about to test a service in up to 1,000 Long Island households where digital-cable customers would use their current set-top box to record shows on the cable head-end server rather than a home recorder. All it requires is a new remote control with that VCR-like capability, which Cablevision anticipates would bring viewer-initiated recording to all its digital homes and at a substantially lower price.
And cable isn't the only VOD pusher anymore. Verizon's new FiOS TV service has won franchise approval in Hempstead, Massapequa Park and other communities, competing with its own extensive menu of on-demand movies, premium channels and cable favorites. Just one more option to sort through when it comes to TV viewing decisions.
Control has its quandaries.
http://www.newsday.com/entertainment/tv/ny-etun4724663may01,0,6852810,print.story
The 2005-2006 Season
This May sweeps, the stunting is back
By Toni Fitzgerald MediaLifeMagazine.com staff writer May 1, 2006
Sweeps over recent years have been less and less dependent on the sort of stunting that used to be standard during the month-long periods. But this May sweeps, with three networks in a tight scuffle for No. 1 for the season, the networks are stunting like it’s 1999.
ABC has two big movies scheduled, as well as an Oprah Winfrey special. CBS, which has pooh-poohed stunting since Les Moonves became network president, has a Tom Selleck movie, a “Dynasty” reunion and a country music awards special.
NBC has “10.5: Apocalypse,” a splashy miniseries sequel with stars such as Kim Delaney and Beau Bridges, plus a highly publicized series of “Dateline” specials on child pedophiles.
And that’s not even including all the series and season finales that have been supersized to two hours or, in the case of ABC’s “Grey’s Anatomy,” even three hours to gain any possible edge in a sweeps and season that are expected to be decided by a razor-thin margin.
Season to date, through the week ended April 23, the most recent available, ABC and Fox are tied for the lead with 4.0 averages among adults 18-49. CBS is just behind at 3.8, and NBC trails badly at a 3.3.
But depending on how the sweeps stunts go, any of the top three networks could conceivably finish No. 1 for the season or the May sweeps.
Fox and ABC have the strongest lineups for sweeps. ABC’s is particularly stunt-heavy, as the network has seen the lead it built with January’s Super Bowl evaporate over recent weeks.
Should either of its two movies, May 9’s timely “Fatal Contact: Bird Flu in America,” or the May 23 spooker “Stephen King’s Desperation,” perform well, ABC could perhaps regain its lead or at least stay in a tie.
That’s because it also has supersized virtually all of its hit shows this month, with “Grey’s,” “Desperate Housewives,” “Extreme Makeover: Home Edition,” “Lost” and “Boston Legal” all expanding to two hours at least once.
Fox, which has been surging since the midseason return of “American Idol,” actually has the fewest major stunts planned. It will air a two-day, two-part “House” this week on Tuesday and Wednesday, a week after the medical drama scored its best-ever rating.
And of course it has a two-hour finale planned for “Idol” on May 24, part of which will air against ABC’s two-hour “Lost” finale.
It also has the series finale of “That ‘70s Show,” featuring the rumored returns of Ashton Kutcher and Topher Grace, but it’s unlikely they’ll provide a huge boost for the show. Fox’s regular lineup may well be enough to win with season finales of “Prison Break” and “24” expected to perform well.
CBS had yesterday’s “Jesse Stone: Death in Paradise” movie with Tom Selleck and the “Academy of Country Music” awards May 23. It’s also been heavily promoting shocking developments on the season finales for “Two and a Half Men,” “Without a Trace” and “CSI.”
Though the network would have to make up a lot of ground, 0.2 rating points at least, to finish first, media researchers say that’s not totally out of the question. CBS already is guaranteed yet another first-place finish among households and total viewers for the season.
CBS is the only network without any big series finales planned. Meanwhile, NBC has two (“West Wing” and “Will & Grace”) and ABC has “Alias,” while Fox also has “Malcolm in the Middle.” But all of those shows are so far off their ratings peak, the finale stunting likely won’t make a big difference in who finishes No. 1.
Sweeps began on Thursday and wraps up May 24.
http://www.medialifemagazine.com/artman/publish/printer_4423.asp
Obituary
Harvey Bullock, 84
Writer Specialized in TV Comedies, Movies
From Los Angeles Times Staff and Wire Reports May 1, 2006
Harvey Bullock, 84, a writer for "The Andy Griffith Show" and other TV comedies in the 1960s and '70s, died April 23 at South Coast Medical Center in Laguna Beach of age-related illnesses, said his daughter, Courtney.
Bullock wrote dozens of episodes of "The Andy Griffith Show" in his five years with the program. In the late '60s, he and writing partner Ray Allen also collaborated on the screenplays for the comic films "Who's Minding the Mint?", "With Six You Get Eggroll" and "Don't Drink the Water," which was adapted from a Woody Allen play.
Bullock and Ray Allen also worked together on scripts for such TV series as "The Flintstones," "The Dick Van Dyke Show" and "Hogan's Heroes." They also were executive producers of "Love, American Style," and creators and executive producers of the animated early 1970s series "Wait Till Your Father Gets Home."
Born on June 4, 1921, in Oxford, N.C., Bullock graduated from Duke University with a bachelor's degree in English. He served in the Navy during World War II, writing and transmitting fake radio messages designed to mislead the Nazis.
http://www.calendarlive.com/tv/cl-me-passings1.2may01,0,2108704,print.story?coll=cl-tvent
Sunday’s prime-time ratings – and Media Week Analyst Marc Berman’s view of what they mean -- have been posted at the top of Ratings News the first post in this thread.
A Critical View
Latest stale episode has 'Lost' fans fuming
By Charlie McCollum San Jose Mercury News Mon, May. 01, 2006
The e-mails started coming even before the end of last week's ``Lost.'' By the next morning, there was a steady stream of often angry complaints about yet another repeat episode.
It wasn't the first such outburst this season. Since the start of the year, devoted fans have complained in e-mails and online forums about the scheduling pattern for ABC's complex dramatic series, which features one of the biggest casts on TV and whose appeal stems in large measure from all the twists and turns built into its story lines.
This past week's group whine was more vociferous than most because, technically, the episode wasn't a repeat and had been described as ``new'' in many TV listings, including those in the Mercury News. Unless you were paying very close attention, you probably didn't know that the hour was a ``clip show,'' a retrospective of what had taken place so far this season.
But no matter how the network dressed it up (and it did the same thing last week with ``Desperate Housewives'' and ``Grey's Anatomy''), the show repeated old material and people were very unhappy.
Before addressing the issues raised by this uproar, let's get one thing out of the way: The rest of the ``Lost'' season -- starting with this Wednesday's episode (9 p.m., Ch. 7) -- will be original, up to and including the two-hour finale on May 24. So that's five more hours of the good stuff.
That said, it's becoming clear that repeats are a big issue for ``Lost,'' or any other heavily serialized drama that requires viewers to pay attention to details.
Under the current network economic model, top dramas generally include 22 episodes each season. But the season lasts about 36 weeks, from mid-September to the end of May. That means at least a dozen repeats or pre-emptions a year.
For a series such as ``Lost,'' that can be deadly, particularly after the rush of a first season wears off. Many people just aren't willing to watch an original hour and then wait through two or three old episodes for the next developments.
And the way ``Lost'' has been expanding its core cast and adding layers to its story has compounded the problem. Quick, when was the last time we saw Michael (Harold Perrineau), who went off in search of his missing son, Walt? (Viewers this Wednesday will find out what's been going on with him.)
The big question: Isn't it time for the networks to fix the model and adopt the cable formula of fewer episodes, airing in a single block without breaks?
I like the idea of fewer hours (let's be honest, even the best shows come up with a percentage of clunkers every season). The problem is that the networks have to come up with something to fill the rest of the hours. Given their spotty success with new series, I don't think that's going to happen anytime soon.
But there already is some indication that a different scheduling approach could work. Just look at the success Fox has had with ``24'' (which airs all its episodes from January to May) and ``Prison Break,'' which ran part of its season in the fall and the rest in the spring.
``Lost,'' in particular, cries out for that kind of approach, and maybe ABC is starting to come around. In recent interviews, Steve McPherson, the head of ABC Entertainment, has said the network is seriously reconsidering how to program the show. A ``24''-style schedule is a possibility; a ``Prison Break'' split season also is on the table.
Whether ABC will take the risk on one of its tent-pole shows remains to be seen.
So what should frustrated ``Lost'' fans do in the meantime?
Well, this season is almost over, so you might as well hang around for the rest of what has been a very good sophomore year for the show.
But next fall, you might take the approach of at least a few people I know who loved Season 1 but have dropped out this time because of all the repeats. They're simply going to wait until the DVD of Season 2 comes out around Labor Day, and then just have a big ol' ``Lost'' fest -- without commercials or repeats.
It doesn't really work for me, but it is an alternative.
Remote controls
• There's never any question that the acting on ``House'' -- particularly by Hugh Laurie as the acidic Dr. Gregory House -- has been sensational from the show's first episode. But through much of the first season and into this one, the writing and storytelling were erratic, a bit ragged around the edges. In recent weeks, though, ``House'' has been on a roll, and this week it offers a superb, suspenseful two-part episode (9 p.m. Tuesday and 8 p.m. Wednesday, Chs. 2, 35). Not only is Laurie at the top of his game, but also the installment gives the sometimes-underused Omar Epps a chance to shine as Eric Foreman, House's much-abused protege. It's a gripping couple of hours.
• ``Thief,'' the spring's best new drama, comes to an end Tuesday (10 p.m., FX) as Nick Atwater (the wonderful Andre Braugher) and his gang try to pull off their big heist and elude the feds. This series has been worth watching just for Braugher's powerhouse performance and young Mae Whitman's (``State of Grace'') excellent turn as Atwater's stepdaughter. Here's hoping it gets a second season.
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/entertainment/columnists/charlie_mccollum/14471354.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp
Overnights in the 18-49 Demo
Sockeroo Sunday for 'Grey's Anatomy'
By Toni Fitzgerald MediaLifeMagazine.com staff writer May 1, 2006, 20:45
Four weeks without a new episode did little to cool the libidos of Seattle’s sexiest interns. And it didn’t cool down ABC’s “Grey’s Anatomy,” either.
The show, which has been broadcast’s hottest drama ever since its post-Super Bowl outing in February, returned to originals last night from three weeks of reruns and preemptions with a 9.7 rating in adults 18-49, according to Nielsen overnights.
That’s 10 percent above the 8.8 rating “Grey’s” has averaged for the entire season. It also finished ahead of lead-in “Desperate Housewives,” which averaged an 8.9. “Grey’s” has bettered its lead-in for every original episode since the Super Bowl.
Before the Super Bowl, “Grey’s” had averaged an 8.1 rating. It’s jumped 0.7 since then, or 9 percent, going from broadcast’s No. 5 show to No. 4. Compared to the same week last year, the show was up nearly 20 percent.
“Grey’s” last original episode came April 2. Since then, ABC has aired a “Grey’s” repeat, the premiere of “What About Brian” and a recap episode of this season’s clips in the 10 p.m. Sunday timeslot.
It bettered the combined average of NBC’s “Crossing Jordan,” at 3.5, and CBS’s movie “Jesse Stone: Death in Paradise,” at a 2.7.
“Stone,” the third edition in the Tom Selleck film series, was up slightly, 4 percent, over its last outing, “Night Passage” in January. That averaged a 2.6.
Meanwhile, ABC finished first for the night among 18-49s with a 6.8 average rating and a 17 share. Fox was second with a 3.3/9, NBC third with 2.7/7, CBS fourth with 2.6/7, Univision fifth with 2.0/3 and WB sixth with 1.0/3.
ABC led each hour of the night, starting with a 2.8 rating at 7 p.m. for part one of “Extreme Makeover Home Edition.” Fox was second with a 2.4 for reruns of “The Simpsons” (2.2) and “King of the Hill” (2.7), CBS third with 2.1 for “60 Minutes,” NBC fourth with a 2.0 for “Dateline,” Univision fifth with a 0.9 for “Hora Pico” and “Chiquitibum,” and WB sixth with a 0.8 for two repeats of “Reba.”
At 8 p.m., “Home Edition” led again at 5.7, followed by Fox’s “The Simpsons” (4.2) and the season finale of “War at Home” (3.6) at a 3.9. CBS’s “Cold Case” was third at 2.9.
At 9 p.m., “Housewives” led with an 8.9 rating, followed by Fox’s “Family Guy” (3.9) and “American Dad” (3.3) at 3.6. NBC’s “Law & Order: Criminal Intent” was third at 3.2. At 10 p.m., “Grey’s” 9.7 led NBC’s “Crossing Jordan,” at 3.5, and CBS’s “Stone” at a 2.7.
In households, ABC led with a 10.0/16, followed by CBS at 9.2/15, NBC at 5.7/9, Fox at 4.1/7 and the WB at 1.6/3.
http://www.medialifemagazine.com/artman/publish/printer_4446.asp
TV Notebook
Cable Subscribers Want More Choices in Content, Access and Pricing Structures
(Abritron Press Release)
NEW YORK – Cable subscribers want less restriction in cable programming and more flexibility in accessing and paying for networks according to a new report from Arbitron Inc. (NYSE:ARB), "Arbitron Cable Television Study: Exploring the Consumer’s Relationship with Cable TV." The study examines what Americans want to see on cable networks, how they want to access the programming and the pricing structures that make the most sense to them.
What Cable Subscribers Want to See
Almost two-thirds of cable subscribers feel that basic cable programming should be unrestricted and nearly half feel that basic cable is rarely or almost never too objectionable. Sixty-two percent of cable subscribers agree that basic cable networks should be able to air whatever programming they please; if people don’t want to watch, they can change the channel. Seventy-seven percent of cable subscribers feel that premium networks should be able to air unrestricted programming.
Preferred Pricing Structure
Most cable subscribers would prefer to choose and pay for only the individual cable networks they are interested in viewing. Fifty-four percent of cable subscribers would prefer to only have access to the networks they view and only pay for those networks. Forty-two percent of cable subscribers would opt to continue buying channel packages as they currently do, and 4 percent are undecided. Currently, most cable companies offer packages of networks grouped together and available for one price for each group.
Video On Demand: With Commercials or Pay a Fee?
Forty-seven percent of those who have either watched or are interested in VOD services would prefer to get the programming for free in exchange for watching commercials that they cannot fast-forward through. Forty-two percent would rather pay a small fee, such as a dollar or two per show, in order to watch uninterrupted (commercial-free) programming.
"In an on-demand, multi-platform world, consumers increasingly want to experience media on their own terms and have a say in how programming is delivered," said Carol Edwards, Vice President of cable services, Arbitron. "As technology for media grows, consumers have more choices. This presents the cable industry with new opportunities to be creative in how they reach consumers."
How the Study Was Conducted
Arbitron, in conjunction with Edison Media Research, interviewed a total of 1,925 people to investigate Americans’ use of cable products and services. From January 13 to February 12, 2006, telephone interviews were conducted with respondents age 12 and older chosen at random from a national sample of Arbitron’s Fall 2005 survey diarykeepers. In certain geographic areas (representing 5% of the national population), a sample of Arbitron diarykeepers was not available for the survey, and a supplemental sample was interviewed through random digit dialing.
A Critical View
Latest stale episode has 'Lost' fans fuming
By Charlie McCollum San Jose Mercury News Mon, May. 01, 2006
• ``Thief,'' the spring's best new drama, comes to an end Tuesday (10 p.m., FX) as Nick Atwater (the wonderful Andre Braugher) and his gang try to pull off their big heist and elude the feds. This series has been worth watching just for Braugher's powerhouse performance and young Mae Whitman's (``State of Grace'') excellent turn as Atwater's stepdaughter. Here's hoping it gets a second season.
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/entertainment/columnists/charlie_mccollum/14471354.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp
I'm hoping it does too, Braugher does a great job in this show, the interaction between father and step-daughter is intense, plus the show has a certain grittiness to it and along with being set in southern Louisiana makes for good TV.
I love "Thief" too but since when did 6 episodes constitute a season? Egads.
I love "Thief" too but since when did 6 episodes constitute a season? Egads.
I think part of that may be because shooting for the show had to be rescheduled and relocated due to Katrina. The show was originally to shoot in New Orleans but was moved to Shreveport.
nikeykid
05-01-06, 03:18 PM
I love "Thief" too but since when did 6 episodes constitute a season? Egads.
it does in britain. the office only had 6 episodes in a season and it feels like so much more.
Sports On TV
Fox to MLB: Let's Play Ball
By John Consoli MediaWeek.com MAY 01, 2006 -
Fox is continuing to talk with Major League Baseball about renewing its television broadcast rights beyond this season, Fox Sports president Ed Goren said today, adding that Fox is "absolutely interested in getting a deal done."
Fox's exclusive negotiating window has expired, and although the current deal with Fox coincides with the end of this season, a new agreement has not been reached. MLB has said other networks have expressed interest, but no specifics have been released. The current Fox TV $417 million per year package includes regular season Saturday afternoon telecasts, the All-Star Game and some post-season playoff games and the World Series. MLB initially was seeking a 20 percent per year increase, according to sources, and Fox was initially seeking to pay no increase.
Although Fox has not been able to reach a new deal, Goren today touted the telecasts on Fox for drawing solid ratings. "Last season, viewership of our Saturday afternoon games was higher than viewership in the first year we carried baseball ten years ago," he said. "How many sports can say that." Continuing to tout Fox's ratings, which averaged a 2.6 in households last season, Goren said, "On a Saturday afternoon at 1 p.m. during the summer, baseball outrates the NBA games which air on Sundays during the winter when more people are home."
MLB telecasts, he said, "have been very, very healthy. But it comes down to economics. NBC walked away from the NBA and ABC walked away from Monday Night Football because of economics. It comes down to how your organization views the deal economically."
But Goren said talks are ongoing and Fox is hopeful of getting a new deal done. "We are still talking and eventually there will be a resolution to this [before the start of next season]."
http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/news/recent_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002425806
Congress Watch
Senate Drafts Huge Telecom Bill
By John Eggerton Broadcasting & Cable 5/1/2006
The Senate Commerce Committee has released the draft of its telecom reform bill and it is a doozy.
In addition to video franchise reform, the main thrust of the House version of the bill, the Senate deals with a host of other issues in its 135-page opus.
Included are the video and audio flag content-protection technology, network neutrality, reforming the Universal Service Fund that helps pay for telecommunications services in underserved areas, municipal broadband, provisions for unlicensed wireless devices, DTV transition-related issues stripped from an earlier bill on the DTV transition, child porn, emergency communications, and even allowing FCC commissioners to talk among themselves.
Committee Co-chairman Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) co-sponsored the bill but apparently doesn't like it that much.
“Today, I have agreed to co-sponsor telecommunications legislation introduced by Senator Stevens," he said in a statement. "I do so in a spirit of bipartisanship, because I believe that bipartisanship will be required if we are to successfully update our nation’s communications laws. My co-sponsorship, however, is not a demonstration of support for the bill itself.
“This is the draft of the Majority Staff, and I have numerous, substantive objections to the bill in its current form. Given that my colleagues and I have not yet had an opportunity to weigh in on this critical legislation, I consider its introduction the very beginning of the legislative process. "
Inouye feels the network neutrality langage in the Senate bill does not go far enough in protecting the Internet from discrimination in service provision by networks, the same criticism leveled by Democrats at the House bill, though that one passed with strong Democrat support anyway.
Sports On TV
Fox to MLB: Let's Play Ball
But Goren said talks are ongoing and Fox is hopeful of getting a new deal done. "We are still talking and eventually there will be a resolution to this [before the start of next season]."
http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/news/recent_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002425806
..and hopefully the games will be in HD if/when they agree to a new contract.
TV Notebook
Puzzling demise of promising 'Thief'
Some say the FX show's stories were confusing, others that it got lost in a barrage of lavish new dramatic offerings.
By Scott Collins Los Angeles Times Staff Writer May 1, 2006
Andre Braugher has been racking his brain, trying to figure out where "Thief" went wrong.
The 43-year-old actor won some of the best reviews of his career playing Nick Atwater, the slick, emotionally conflicted New Orleans con man in FX's heist drama, which wraps its six-episode run Tuesday night. FX, home of such hits as "The Shield" and "Nip/Tuck," heavily promoted the show. Test audiences raved about the pilot, Braugher said.
And yet "Thief" tanked anyway. As soon as he glimpsed the ratings for the second episode early last month, "I entered the grieving process," Braugher said by phone last week.
Those who try to parse failure or success in Hollywood are reminded of screenwriter William Goldman's famous dictum: "Nobody knows anything." But given its many virtues, "Thief" has been an especially puzzling flop.
Just 2.5 million viewers showed up for the March 28 premiere, according to data from Nielsen Media Research. That was a far lower figure than the debut numbers for "The Shield" (4.8 million), "Nip/Tuck" (3.7 million) and even last summer's Iraq drama "Over There" (4.1 million), itself a disappointment. Then "Thief" shed nearly half its audience by the second episode.
What happened? Braugher and others close to the show have their own speculations. (Was there not enough action? Were Nick's problems with Chinese mobsters adequately explained? Were viewers turned off by Nick's ambivalent morality?) But some industry veterans wonder whether deeper forces are at work — ones that might spell trouble for cable's headlong push into scripted programming.
When FX's gritty cop drama, "The Shield," debuted in 2002, original series were still few and far between on basic cable (HBO's push began in the late 1990s, with "Sex and the City"). But now, in a bid for higher ratings and increased fees from cable operators, nearly two dozen basic-cable networks have original series in some stage of development or production.
TNT, for example, is bringing back its hit cop drama, "The Closer," in June, and USA Network has found some success with series such as "Monk" and "The 4400." And then there are splashy, loudly publicized broadcast series: NBC premiered its own "Ocean's 11"-style caper, "Heist," the week before "Thief's" debut. "Heist" bombed too.
The sheer number of new shows makes it tough for even the good ones to stand out.
"The overabundance of scripted programming on broadcast and cable networks has made audiences mostly numb to it," said Ted Harbert, president and chief executive of E! Networks, which today is announcing a slate of new shows that includes a reality series about Nick Carter, formerly of the Backstreet Boys.
Despite the glut, even Harbert is considering taking the plunge, mostly in hopes of adding a title that would help build buzz for E!'s reality lineup. "I'd love to have that special show like [HBO's] 'Entourage,' " Harbert said.
"I think we're going to see more and more [ratings] erosion of the larger cable networks," said Jack Myers, a longtime TV analyst and editor and publisher of the website Mediavillage.com. "Even the smaller networks are investing more money in programming…. Everyone is ramping up the game and competing with broadcast-type budgets."
It's not uncommon for dramatic series on cable these days to cost well more than $1 million per episode, Myers said, approaching the $2 million-plus price tags often seen on broadcast dramas.
That type of environment makes it easy for even highly acclaimed shows to slip through the cracks. Consider, for example, HBO's "The Wire," which despite endless hosannas from critics has never grown beyond its cult fan base.
Of course, none of that consoles the people who worked on "Thief." FX executives and the producers have spent the past few weeks trading ideas about what happened. Executive producer and writer Norman Morrill called the show's failure "heartbreaking."
"Essentially, [viewers] didn't like it," Braugher theorized. "The audience saw something on pilot night that let them know they didn't want to come back."
In fact, the audience was divided, at least according to comments posted on Internet message boards. Although reviewers mostly loved the series — San Francisco Chronicle critic Tim Goodman included it on his list of "Best Shows You're Not Watching" — some viewers have complained that the storytelling has been confusing, especially a subplot involving a crooked cop, memorably played by Michael Rooker.
It's worth noting, though, that a number of hit dramas, including HBO's "The Sopranos" and ABC's "Lost," have occasionally faced similar accusations from frustrated viewers. Braugher has a different view. " 'Complicated' is good, in my opinion," he said.
FX will angle for the Emmy Awards with a lavish trade ad campaign focusing on Braugher's performance and the fine reviews "Thief" received.
Meanwhile, Braugher, perhaps best known for his role as a detective on the mid-'90s cop drama "Homicide: Life on the Street," is still looking for that breakout role as a series lead (his medical drama "Gideon's Crossing" lasted one season on ABC). And he's been reminded of the folly of asking the unanswerable.
"I've thought long and hard," he said about "Thief's" failure. "I'm still baffled."
http://www.calendarlive.com/tv/cl-et-channel1may01,0,2139670,print.story?coll=cl-tv-features
archiguy
05-01-06, 05:38 PM
I'm one of those folks who bailed on Thief after one episode (or was it two?). Just didn't seem compelling enough to stick with, was a bit confusing, and I wasn't sure whether I needed to root for Braugher's character or not. One thing I did like was its limited, 6-episode run. In these days of oversaturation, commented on in that article, shorter is sometimes better as it's somewhat comforting not to be subjected to a large time commitment. But after the initial episode, even 5 more seemed too much. Sorry Andre.
The 2005-2006 TV Season
Ask Matt
(from the Ask (TV Critic) Matt (Roush) column at TVGuide.com
By Matt Roush TVGuide.com TV Critic
Matt Roush: To each their own. I love Scrubs as well — that's no secret — but I also think it shares a bond with Grey's, which has exploded for a reason. Not just because of sex, but because of its heart. Both of these shows are so easy to love and make me feel great for watching, and are blessed with incredible, very diverse casts. To reduce Grey's to the mere level of an oversexed soap opera does not take into account how smartly it weaves its medical cases into its personal dramas, and how well it achieves its results. Not to mention the powerful chemistry of its various couples. Grey's is an almost perfectly satisfying show right now, but then, so is Scrubs. No reason to use one to club the other.
I would think House should at least be mentioned when comparing hospital-based programs. For me it's easily the best of them.
I agree that House is an exceptional TV show, TommyK, but I am not sure how long the grating central character will wear with mass audiences. I certainly could be wrong, and personally I look forward to (hopefully) many more seasons of Hugh Laurie in full House-ness. But I can't help but wonder if this isn't a one-trick pony.
Grey's, one the other hand, offers many storylines, though admittedly some are far less appealing than others. But many of them are so far out of the normal-TV box that they are fascinating (to me at least) to watch as they unfold.
So has "Thief" been officially dumped?
A Critical View:
''House'' Two-Parter
By Rich Heldenfels in his Akron Beacon Journal TV blog
This weekend was a ''House'' triple-header: finally catching up to the DVR of last week's episode, followed by the two-part telecast airing this week (at 9 p.m. Tuesday and then 8 p.m. Wednesday).
There is one link between last week and this week -- the intersection of faith and medicine. Last week, of course, that was in the story of House (Hugh Laurie) and team trying to cure a young faith healer. I didn't think the show handled the topic very well, as it reached a compromise -- medicine working some, faith working some -- that felt too much like something designed to pacify all segments of the audience. The new episodes embrace faith through Foreman's father (played solemnly by guest star Charles Dutton) during a medical crisis after Foreman picks up a mysterious and potentially very dangerous ailment from a patient. It feels with faith more sure-handedly. Foreman's father comes across as someone who not only believes in God but believes in what people can do -- particularly people who know more about a topic than he does.
But the episodes are really a showcase for Foreman (Omar Epps) and, to a lesser degree, Cameron (Jennifer Morrison), as her conflict with Foreman remains unresolved going into these shows. There's also a glimpse of the warmer side of House. All right, so he doesn't really have a warmer side. Let's say a glimpse into the conscience of House, since he does have one of those, and the show does well in dealing with why it's often better that House not care about his patients.
Not a perfect pair of episodes. After all, we all know that, if a story is in two parts, then what looks like a solution near the end of part one is probably not going to work out. But as character pieces they're highly enjoyable. The idea that Foreman is in many respects House Jr. gets a real workout here, and more than once you will look at him and think, yeah, House would have done the same thing. And Cameron gets to show some elements of her character that are a departure from what we usually see, while consistent with Cameron as we know her.
http://blogs.ohio.com/beacon_tv/
I'm one of those folks who bailed on Thief after one episode (or was it two?). Just didn't seem compelling enough to stick with, was a bit confusing, and I wasn't sure whether I needed to root for Braugher's character or not.
But that's what FX dramas have always been about, the flawed, anti-hero character, Vic Mackey(The Shield), Tommy Gavin(Rescue Me), and even every one of the soldiers in Over There. I don't know, I guess America can handle only so many of these types of characters.
As far as confusing, I'm not sure what was confusing about it, everything made sense, at least to me anyway...but I have not been picking many winners lately... :p
123HDTV
05-01-06, 06:29 PM
I am not sure how long the grating central character will wear with mass audiences. I certainly could be wrong, and personally I look forward to (hopefully) many more seasons of Hugh Laurie in full House-ness. But I can't help but wonder if this isn't a one-trick pony.
This season seemed to be a bit of softening of house. While the abrasive style is still there, the shows with Sela Ward showed another side of House... I enjoyed the small shift this season.
Sam
Here is yet another great link from Aaron Barnhart's superb TV Barn site:
http://www.tvbarn.com/
TV Notebook
“Reba” cancelled?
EXCLUSIVE: Moonves Manhandles "Reba"
By Nikki Finke LA Weekly
So CBS thinks Reba McIntire is good enough to host the Academy of Country Music Awards live on May 23rd. (It's her 8th time.)
But CBS' Les Moonves doesn't think the 51-year-old actress-singer's show Reba is good enough for his new CW netlet -- even though it's the highest-rated sitcom on the WB.
I'm told the show's producer, Fox Studios, was shocked to hear the CW doesn't want the sitcom. That's because, last year, Reba was picked up by the WB for two years.
When news broke about the WB/UPN merging to form CW, Reba's executive producers informed the cast and crew that Moonves had sent word that he expected the new netlet would honor that deal. So the series' shooting ended on March 14th with everyone expecting to be back in the fall.
But I'm told that, in mid-April, the CW execs told Fox they wanted out of the deal -- the reason being that the show doesn't attract "the desired demographic" the new network wants tuning in. (Translation: no to Country-Western yahoos.)
Fox said no way, and that is where things now stand.
It's my understanding that, because of the old pick-up deal, it could cost the CW lotsa loot to make the show go away. Some believe this might just be a negotiation ploy to lower the license fee and other costs.
But I seriously doubt it. Officially, the show is not canceled yet. But the cast is devastated, and the crew have been told to grab any other work that's offered.
I've also learned from some Reba insiders that the show's season finale, which airs this Friday, was originally scripted and shot as a cliffhanger. But they tell me it's been re-edited to reflect Moonves's kiss-off, so it may be the series' finale.
http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/205/
TV Notebook
'House'-a-palooza:
On Omar Epps' Emmy bid, Wilson's messed-up life and stupid cane tricks
By Maureen Ryan from the Chicago Tribune TV blog May 1, 2006
"House" isn’t waiting for its May 23 season finale to bring out the big guns.
The hit medical drama, which is regularly garnering an impressive 22 million viewers each week, airs an intense two-parter at 8 p.m. Tuesday and 7 p.m. Wednesday on WFLD-Ch. 32, and amps up the suspense by making the patient in crisis one of Dr. Greg House’s own assistants.
Omar Epps, who plays Dr. Eric Foreman, can’t complain that he doesn’t have a star turn to submit come Emmy time. The episodes, in which his character falls ill thanks to an infection passed on by a sick cop, are fine showcases for Epps, and also feature a cameo appearance by Charles S. Dutton as Foreman’s devoutly religious father.
One person you won’t see much of in the two-parter is Dr. James Wilson, an oncologist and House’s best friend. And the actor who plays him, Robert Sean Leonard, is fine with that.
“The hair and makeup people were saying one day, `Oh, I love those scenes with you and Hugh [Laurie, who plays House]; there should be more of that.’ And I’m like, `Shhh! ” Leonard said by phone from his New York City home.Don’t say that!,’ “I’m the luckiest man in Hollywood. I work only with Hugh, pretty much, who’s great. And I work two days a week.”
He says he doesn’t envy the hours that Laurie and “the Mod Squad,” or House’s trio of assistant doctors, have to put in on the drama.
“They are at that studio for 16 hours a day saying `tachycardia, ” Leonard says with a laugh. “I’m very happylupus, blah blah de blah,’ with the size of my role. I don’t want it to get any bigger.”
“Money’s good, and I’m glad I’m getting that,” adds Leonard, who has been in 14 Broadway plays and won a Tony Award for his role in “The Invention of Love.” “I’m putting it away for later in life when I do more Tom Stoppard plays at Lincoln Center and make no money.”
“If I come back to New York in two years and nothing’s changed, I’ll be thrilled,” he says. “All I really want to do is [act in] plays, play with my dog, have kids. My desires are pretty simple.”
Still, there’s no arguing that Wilson plays an important role in the show (which might well be around for more than two years, given how it has taken off in the ratings). The oncologist is a medical sounding board for House and one of the few people the brilliant diagnostician opens up to. Quite simply, the misanthropic House trusts Wilson.
“The original idea of the show was House and Wilson, like Holmes and Watson,” Leonard says. “But it got away from that, and his team is Watson, if you want to be technical about it.
“I’m the only one who tells him the truth. And [Wilson] has nothing to lose,” Leonard notes. “I don’t work for him, and he doesn’t work for me. I’m the only character who chooses to be with him as opposed to being there because of a job.”
Wilson and House have more in common than surface appearances might indicate. Sure, it might look as though Wilson cares too much about patients — possibly at the risk of getting unprofessionally involved, as a recent episode showed — and at first glance, it appears House cares too little for the people he’s treating.
But in fact, House cares a lot about figuring out each week’s medical puzzle, and you could make the argument that Wilson is nearly as emotionally messed up as House.
“They sort of hide out together; they hide from mature relationships,” notes “House” executive producer Katie Jacobs.
“He’s a character who’s been married several times, and all his marriages have failed,” Jacobs says of Wilson. “I think that when a relationship presents itself, it’s hard for him to say no. And he’s not necessarily thinking about what he wants. But he’s trying to simply make the other person feel good. And there’s something in that for him.”
What’s in it for Leonard, aside from a steady paycheck on a well-written, successful show, is the chance to work with the British Laurie, whose acting challenge, Leonard says, is daunting at best.
“The thing is, with this part, Hugh has a huge obstacle he has to deal with — having an American accent,” Leonard notes. “His problem [of thinking the accent isn’t perfect] isn’t our problem. … We as the audience don’t have that problem, because what he doesn’t know is that he does it perfectly. But of course he doesn’t hear that. That’s why he can’t watch the show.”
“He’s got the medical jargon, the accent, then we give him a cane,” notes Jacobs, who adds that Laurie himself has come up with most of the “stupid cane tricks” you see House perform. “And he’s spoken Chinese, he’s juggled. He’s got a lot of things to do. It’s an unbelievably tricky role. And it’s amazing how he’s made it his own. But it is really hard.”
As Leonard, who has done accents for several stage roles, notes, “acting is letting go and forgetting yourself — it’s the opposite of ego. It’s flying away and getting away from yourself and forgetting. And when you’re doing an accent, it’s virtually impossible to do that.”
Still, audiences don’t seem to notice any problems with Laurie’s performance; in fact, he won a Golden Globe for it this year. “House’s” ratings continue to climb; the show’s draw among adults ages 18-49 is up 40 percent from a similar post-“American Idol” slot a year ago. The show, which started out last year as a mid-season program on Fox, is now among the highest-rated scripted dramas on television.
Some of the show’s success can be attributed to the fact that it focuses on solving the mystery of the week by the end of the hour, so “House,” to an extent, falls within the procedural genre for which Americans have a seemingly insatiable appetite. But for viewers who aren’t particularly fans of “CSI”-style procedurals “House” regularly upends the conventions in head-spinning ways (as it did in last season’s Emmy-winning “Three Stories” episode. Jacobs says the show will do it again with its second-season finale)
“With our structure, you’re always going to have that person falling sick, it’s rooted in procedural that way — what is the mystery, what is the diagnosis,” Jacobs notes. “But I think if you get to know the characters better, we can rely on them to keep every episode original.”
The witty banter between the characters is also a draw. There’s an echo of Howard Hawks’ films in the dialogue, given that it’s spoken by smart, attractive, strong-willed people (and whenever a woman is involved in a scene, especially with House, there’s usually an undercurrent of sexual tension).
In the tense two-parter, there are several memorable bits of dialogue between House and Foreman, who has emerged as sort of a grumpy House-in-training. At one point in Wednesday’s episode, Foreman says he’d rather be disabled than dead. “Sure, I make it look oh so sexy,” House shoots back.
Though the smart writing, inventive storytelling and intriguing moral dilemmas faced by House and his patients are all compelling, one masterstroke lies at the heart of the show’s breakout success: The casting of Laurie, who was previously best known for comic roles in British comedies such as “Blackadder” and family-friendly fare such as the “Stuart Little” movies.
“I think a large part of why the character works so well is because, although House is really abrasive and arrogant and caustic on the outside, as an actor, Hugh Laurie lets us see inside of him and brings that inner life out — so that you forgive him, because you see so much going on there on the inside,” Jacobs says.
http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/entertainment_tv/2006/05/house_isnt_wait.html#more
TV Notebook
'House'-a-palooza, part 2:
Robert Sean Leonard
By Maureen Ryan from the Chicago Tribune TV blog May 1, 2006
Here's the text of my interview with "House's" Robert Sean Leonard, who plays Dr. James Wilson. He may be the only actor in Hollywood who doesn't want his role to get bigger. And who wants nothing more than to do Tom Stoppard plays in New York and hang out with his fiance. But anyway, on with the show...
Do you watch the show much?
"I can't watch it. I mean, Hugh doesn't watch it because he's anal and … eight years old. [laughs] And by the way, I don’t buy it, I think he does watch it.
“I watched in the first year. We live in New York and [my fiancé] was in California] and she likes it because I’m on it. But then she left, she had to come back to New York, and what are you going to do? The idea of me watching myself on TV, alone in Santa Monica, was just about.. just short of, like, a bottle of Maker’s Mark and a shotgun away from shooting myself. [much laughter] So I haven’t watched it all season. But when I have watched it, I’ve been mildly confused and Hugh is appropriately grumpy."
I have this theory that a lot of my favorite shows aren’t even about what they’re supposed to be about -- they have to be set in a hospital or police station or outer space or whatever because the network can market that, but they’re secretly not even about that. Like, “House” is really about ethics and morality.
“Yeah, sure, I think that’s true.”
But you can’t pitch that show to the network. “Hey, we have this great show that examines personal morality!"
“‘It’s based on “A View from the Bridge.”’
Right! They’re really going to for that.
“Yeah. [laughs] I think it’s good, and when it’s right, when the show works, the mystery works. It has a Sherlock Holmes-ian feel to it, and you do kind of want to know what’s wrong with [the patients]. And it is interesting, the turns and twists that get you there. And there’s always a little bit of character-driven fun stuff in between, of who these people are and how they affect each other. And that’s it at its best. And I guess that could be true of any show.
“It’s tricky, you’ve got a lead character [who’s different from the TV norm] and you’ve got to be careful because those characters can be one-note. He’s the cranky guy, he’s the Australian guy, I’m the friend in one or two scenes a week. You just have to be careful, and I think we are, we have a really great team of writers. And the numbers are building, people are watching.”
So this two-parter on May 2 and 3, I think the unofficial subtitle is the “Festival of Foreman.” I guess they’re his Emmy episodes, and that’s fine. But you’re hardly in them, what’s up with that?
“Honestly, I’m okay. I don’t want an Emmy. This is what I want -- I know exactly what I want. I did play with a guy named Skip Sudduth, ‘The Iceman Cometh,’ seven years ago. I saw him five years later, and I said, ‘Geez, Skip, where have you been? I don’t see you at readings anymore.’ He said, ‘I’ve been on “Third Watch.”’ It sounded familiar but I’d never seen it. He said, ‘I’ve been doing it for five years.’ I said, ‘Holy crap!’ And he was back doing theater. That’s my dream.
“And it’s happening. I walk down the street and people say, ‘Where are you?’ and I say, ‘I’m on this show called “House.”’ My friend Lewis Black [from 'The Daily Show'] said, ‘What is it called? “Head”?’
“I’m okay. I’ve never been happier than where my career is now. And I don’t want it to change necessarily. Money’s good, and I’m glad I’m getting that, and I’m putting it away for later in life when I do more Tom Stoppard plays at Lincoln Center and make no money. But really, I’m great. I don’t mind working two days a week.
http://tempo.typepad.com/entertainment_tv/
TV Notebook
'House'-a-palooze, Part 3:
Katie Jacobs
By Maureen Ryan from the Chicago Tribune TV blog May 1, 2006
There aren't any really specific spoilers in this interview with executive producer Katie Jacobs, but there are a few tidbits about what's coming up on "House." The few spoilery bits are marked.
This is one thing I've always wanted to ask -- do you do those inside-the-body shots partly because that sort of stuff is on other medical or crime shows? Was that something the network wanted?
"That was something we [the show's creators and executive producers] decided on that with the pilot. Going inside the body really relates to our idea that going to a hospital is scary. When they treat you, it’s really high stakes trial-and-error. So the journey into the body is just an extension of that, when your throat closes up or whatever."
Those shots are effective, they do help tell the story of what's going on. But sometimes I think, but why aren't they spending more time showing Hugh Laurie's eyes?
"But I’m kind of with you on that [laughs]. We’ve really got to select those times, to go inside the body, so that it’s effective."
A friend of mine and I have a theory, that there's one lighting technician just for Hugh's eyes.
[Laughs] "That's so funny. What’s interesting about the way he photographs, aside from the fact that he photographs sensationally, is that you can’t get close enough. The closer you get with the camera, the more his face really comes alive, the more you can see into those eyes and his soul."
A lot of actors don’t have that, they have the dramatic skills, but that magnetism is something you can’t manufacture.
"I think a large part of why the character works so well is because, although House is really abrasive and arrogant and caustic on the outside, as an actor, Hugh Laurie lets us see inside of him and brings that inner life out, so that you forgive him. Because you see so much going on there on the inside."
The show's dialogue is, I think, really intelligent and smart. Not to mention funny.
"I think the fact that we have these characters that are smart and well drawn allows us the opportunity to do that kind of dialogue and you don’t feel like it’s fake and phony. And it is really fun. For instance the dialogue between Cuddy and House -- you believe that relationship, so you’re allowed to write that kind of dialogue and banter that feels real."
And House’s personality allows him to say things people don’t normally say. That must be fun to write.
"That’s exactly right. Yeah. And I think it’s great fun to watch. We all wish in our daily lives we could say exactly what’s on our minds, but few of us have the courage to do that, and Dr. House does that."
But I like how it’s not always the quip. At one point in the two-parter, Foreman delivers some obscure medical fact, and you're expecting House to give the zingy comeback, but he just smiles and says, "I love that you know that."
"[The episodes] all work really differently. They have very different sorts of tempos to them. That’s exciting to us, how to keep them fresh. With our structure, you’re always going to have that person falling sick, it’s rooted in procedural that way, what is the mystery, what is the diagnosis. But I think if you get to know the characters better, we can rely on them to keep every episode original."
I talked to Robert Sean Leonard, and he talked me out of my theory that the procedural isn't as important on "House." But I can see how they kind of have to be there in equal parts, you need both the character stuff and the procedural element.
"I think you do, I think you do. I think there’s a certain comfort in television viewing in knowing what to expect. But my taste is like your taste and yes, I want to know what’s going what’s going on with those people, what’s happening between them."
But often people are in the hospital because not just because they are sick, there is something wrong with their lives. It's partly about the choices they've made, and often about what they've hidden from the world.
"Yeah, everybody lies, thematically [that’s the show]."
It seems like there's been an effort to explore the Scooby gang a little more, or what Robert called the Mod Squad. Is that just a natural outgrowth of being in the second season?
"The luxury you have in having a second season and knowing you have a third season is you can develop character. This season, before it’s over, you learn more about Wilson, you learn more about Foreman, you learn something really interesting about Cuddy. So spending more time with these characters give you that opportunity. I should say that Robert refers to House and Wilson’s relationship as Tigger and Pooh."
With House as Pooh?
"I think so. But he’s more of an Eeyore character."
Yeah, exactly. And there is the whole Holmes-Watson element to their relationship too. I've really enjoyed the stuff where Wilson is in House's house. As someone noted online, "So oncologists can't afford hotels?" But really, Wilson moving in with House is more about him taking refuge with his friend.
"Yeah. And we’re alluded to Wilson having all these failed marriages, and falls almost too easily into these relationships. Him moving into House was just a way to learn more about that."
It's sort of like these two guys are more alike than they might seem at first -- they both use work to avoid deeper commitments. They're really pretty similar, in some important ways.
"Right. I think you’re exactly right and I think that’s one reason they take great comfort in their friendship. They sort of hide out together, they hide from mature relationships. [It's like,] 'Girls make us care and feel and it’s easier to be with guys and focus on our work and pretend that nothing matters.'
“A lot of ['House vs. God'] is about Wilson. A lot of it is about his personality trait that makes him want to fix everybody, heal everybody and make everybody feel good. Sometimes that’s a great thing, sometimes that can get you into trouble.
“He’s a character who’s been married several times, and all his marriages have failed. I think that when a relationship presents itself, it’s hard for him to say no. And he’s not necessarily thinking about what he wants. But he’s trying to simply make the other person feel good. And there’s something in that for him.”
It’s interesting that Wilson is seen as being so compassionate, but in the end, he sort of wants to be seen as the good guy, the savior – whereas House, despite his attitude, is more purely committed to the truth. He doesn’t care how he looks to other people.
"Well, Wilson, like most doctors, cares what people think of him. And I think House has dropped that to a larger extent. People do have an impact on him, he would not share that or let you see it, but he cares less about what you think about him and more about solving the puzzle. And when the chips are down, do you want a doctor who cares about crossing T’s and dotting I’s or who will figure out what’s wrong with you?"
He does care about solving the puzzle, even to the point where he will admit his mistakes. Where other doctors don't.
"And House doesn’t care about that."
Hugh had an interesting theory that, in a movie, the lead characters change. But in a TV show, everyone around the lead character changes. That character is the catalyst for the transitions of others. Do you think there’s a way to tinker with who House is, or do you not want to mess with that too much?
"One of the luxuries of TV series is that it’s like a family that you live with, so every episode is a little slice of life. And I think he’s right about feature films, you watch that main character and they will go through some sort of transformation. But when you’re experiencing a series, and experiencing a character week in and week out, the transformation is more gradual. So it’s not to say that House will never change, I think different experiences will have an impact on him, but the way you experience TV, you’re going to be living with him for a while, but it will be more gradual."
Can you talk at all about the finale? [This paragraph and the next few are a little spoilery]
"What I can say about the finale is that it’s really a departure for us. It’s a very different episode, not unlike -- we did an episode last year called ‘Three Stories.’"
That’s one of my favorite episodes of TV of all time.
"Thanks, [creator] David [Shore] did an amazing job with that episode. David has written and directed the finale, and it is a different way of storytelling for us. Leading up to the finale, you will learn more about Wilson, Foreman and Cuddy, things you don’t yet know about them. But the finale is pretty much focused on House.
"It’s interesting, you might wonder whether House ever struggles with whether or not he’s doing the right thing in the way that he behaves toward patients. And this episode will sort of deal with the struggle that goes on inside House’s head.
"As you can imagine, House ticks off a lot of people. So somebody comes back, not someone we’ve necessarily seen in the series, but someone who he has ticked off comes back in the finale, and lets House know what he thinks about how [House] goes about his business." [Spoilery stuff ends here]
Will you revisit the issue of House’s leg injury?
"[For him] I think it’s a constant struggle. Living with that kind of ongoing pain is a struggle and taking Vicodin to relieve that pain is also an ongoing struggle. It’s something we’re definitely going to deal with."
This year or next?
"Both."
You do have those moments in various episodes, when he’s alone in his apartment or whatever, when he tries to walk, and he can’t. But he’s unwilling to let anyone know how hard it is.
"Right. There are times when the pain becomes intolerable to him. And what’s he going to do about that? That’s a big part of the character. There’s something to the doctor who doesn’t want to see patients -- there’s also something to the doctor who doesn’t want to be seen by patients. There’s an element of that in House. What kind of confidence are you going to have in a doctor who is not… who’s handicapped basically?
And House has a huge reservoir of pride. To be seen as less that perfect must just grate on him.
"He doesn’t want to see patients because he doesn’t want to be bothered by them, but he doesn’t want to be seen by them for that reason. He’s an intensely masculine character, I find. And I love the way Hugh has incorporated the cane into [his performance]."
Yeah, there’s a lot of that [in “Euphoria Part 1 and 2," which air Tuesday and Wednesday]. Are all of those stupid cane tricks coming from Hugh?
"Yeah, that’s coming from him. Occasionally now we’ll write in cane tricks, but he he usually does his own thing and makes it his own. There was an episode recently where he smashed up a Vicodin into his sandwich – that came from Hugh."
From talking to Robert, I understand a bit more how difficult doing an accent is for an actor -- it sounds pretty difficult.
"It’s so hard. First of all, the medical jargon alone… he’s got the medical jargon, the accent, then we give him a cane. And he’s spoken Chinese, he’s juggled. He’s got a lot of things to do. It’s an unbelievably tricky role. And it’s amazing how he’s made it his own. But it is really hard."
And he’s pretty hard on himself as to whether he gets it right.
"He really wants to get it right and never quite thinks that he does."
And obviously he’s not a fan of all that “Hugh is a hottie” press.
"I don’t know, I think it’s just sort of foreign to him. The majority of roles that he’s played up 'til now is sort of the clown. And I imagine that has been something he feels more comfortable playing. But in truth, he is a serious [actor]. And a sexy guy in real life. I think it comes really naturally to him, and obviously he doesn’t feel that way. I think it’s who he really is, I mean, he’s a musician, he’s incredibly funny, incredibly smart, incredibly masculine and those are all qualities he brings to the character. But he feels very separate from this identity as a sex symbol. But it’s very easy to see how he is one."
Isn’t it funny how the people who have that charisma don’t think they have it. And if you try to have it, you just don't.
"I think he said in an interview, I don’t want to misquote, but I think he said, if a man thinks he’s sexy, he’s not, whereas women can think they’re sexy and they are. But he’s certainly not trying to be sexy, he just owns his space. I think there’s something really appealing about that. He holds the center of the show, and that’s what we were looking for. If you push him he won’t fall over, and there’s something really sexy about that."
The House-Cameron thing, will that ever come to the fore again? [Minor spoiler below]
"What I love is that the audience feels, and I feel, that there’s potential for House and Cameron. I think there’s potential for House and Cuddy. There have been a lot of gay references to House and Wilson. [laughs] And I think we’re going to play with all of that. I don’t think any of that is over. I love that all of that is percolating. I hope we haven’t extinguished any possibility.
"But [House and Cuddy] are going to share a secret by the end of the season that will bring them a little close together. I am not saying that they are going to hook up."
Will Stacy come back?
We haven’t discussed that yet, so the real answer to that is I don’t know.
Has it really hit you guys, how popular the show is, how the numbers keep going up?
"There was a school assembly that David [Shore] went to and the principal said, 'I will be brief -- you will all get home in time to watch "House."' To me that’s kind of phenomenal. It’s hard for all of us here, David and Hugh and myself -- we’re here so long and we’re just [doing the show]. It’s hard to absorb how it’s really become a part of the culture. We believe it but it’s hard to really take it in. But it’s thrilling."
http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/entertainment_tv/2006/05/houseapalooze_p.html#more
archiguy
05-01-06, 07:08 PM
As far as confusing, I'm not sure what was confusing about it, everything made sense, at least to me anyway...but I have not been picking many winners lately... :p
That may just have been my limited perspective; probably would have tied up nicely had I been willing to overlook it's other flaws (as I perceived them). I'm generally a fan of FX's originals; they do a consistently good job at providing "non-lowest common denominator" programming. You know, the stuff that we like that generally gets flushed in a big hurry by the Big Four. ;)
tkmedia2
05-01-06, 07:23 PM
Thanks for the Thief article. I knew the rating were bad, but not that bad! sigh. Sounds like the end of the show for sure.
Confusing? I didnt find that to be the case at all. Like others I've been watching too much television with ongoing story arcs(24, prison break, LOST, prev the shield, battlestar, veronica mars, etc), but only got confused a bit with veronica, but that was because of the long break bt new episodes.
Thanks for not shooting the messenger, Tony!
I should point out, as I do every six months or so, that I don't necessarily enjoy posting stories about the demise of one show or another. Each has people who have enjoyed it, even if I am not one of them.
And for the fans, as well as the cast and crew who -- no matter what we think of their efforts -- generally work their butts off, cancellation is an abrupt and sad end of the line.
I agree that House is an exceptional TV show, TommyK, but I am not sure how long the grating central character will wear with mass audiences. I certainly could be wrong, and personally I look forward to (hopefully) many more seasons of Hugh Laurie in full House-ness. But I can't help but wonder if this isn't a one-trick pony.
Grey's, one the other hand, offers many storylines, though admittedly some are far less appealing than others. But many of them are so far out of the normal-TV box that they are fascinating (to me at least) to watch as they unfold.
Fredfa,
I agree with you about Grey's. It has some of the freshest ideas going right now.
BTW
'House'-a-palooza, Parts 1-3?
Now look what I started...
Just kidding.:D
TV Notebook
Not WB Nor UPN
By Bill Carter The New York Times May 2, 2006
Only two months after announcing the start-up of the CW network — the result of a merger in January of two struggling part-time networks, WB and UPN — executives from CBS and Warner Brothers met with the marketing department of their new entity, expecting to make a radical change.
"We walked into that meeting ready to throw out the name CW," said Barry Meyer, the chairman of Warner Brothers. "We'd gotten so much grief from everybody. What does it mean? What is it?"
Good question. Some people thought CW might stand for "the country western network," said Leslie Moonves, the chairman of the CBS Corporation, who along with Mr. Meyer will oversee the new network. Other people suggested it might be "the conventional wisdom network."
Mr. Moonves explained that the CW name had been thrown together hurriedly because of the rushed nature of the merger last winter. The C came from CBS and the W from Warner Brothers. "And we certainly weren't going to call it the WC network," Mr. Moonves said.
Name aside, the prime purpose for establishing what both Mr. Meyer and Mr. Moonves hope will be a fifth major broadcast network is to ensure that the production studios each company owns, Warner Brothers Television and CBS/Paramount Television, will have a distribution outlet to make long-term assets out of the studios' programs.
One crucial decision that sealed the merger was an agreement that whenever a studio owned by the network's parents gets a show onto CW, the other studio will gain a 50 percent share in it.
But making the network credible to its prime audience of teenagers and young adults is critical to its success, the two executives said, and to do so CW will need to put on the best programs available in the marketplace, not merely ones owned by the parent companies.
So outside studios, including Touchstone — owned, like ABC, by the Walt Disney Company — and NBC Universal Television, also have pilot projects at CW.
Mr. Moonves emphasized that as a new network, CW wants to add at least a few new shows, if only to signal that it has something of its own to offer.
"At CBS scheduling meetings, I always say: Don't fall in love with the new girl, don't get carried away," Mr. Moonves said. "With the CW, I might say: It's O.K. to fall in love with the new girl, instead of the old wife."
The new network has seven pilots under consideration, four from studios not owned by one of the network's two parent companies.
Dawn Ostroff, the president of entertainment and chief programmer, said some of the promising shows included "Aquaman," a drama holdover from WB, and a comedy from Paramount, "She Said, He Said," starring Jessica Simpson's estranged husband, the gossip magazine superstar Nick Lachey.
From other studios, the network is looking at a reality show about forming a new all-girl singing group and a comedy from NBC Universal, "Aliens in America," about a Muslim exchange student moving in with a Wisconsin family.
The latter show reflects one strategic goal of the new network: trying to match its programming with the diversity of its intended audience. Ms. Ostroff said research the network had seen underscored how extremely diverse the 18-to-34-year-old television audience is.
"Thirty-five percent are minorities," she said. "And it's a big audience. There are 72 million Americans from the age of 25 down. That's the biggest group since the Baby Boomers."
For all the effort to carve out a new identity, however, much of what will be introduced this month on the first CW schedule is expected to be quite familiar to both advertisers and viewers.
"We could probably build a stand-pat schedule," Mr. Moonves said, noting that there were already enough shows working on WB and UPN to cherry-pick a cross section from each and fill the 13 hours that CW will program in prime time.
CW is not making anything official yet, but among the shows that Mr. Moonves and Ms. Ostroff said would almost surely be included on the new schedule are "America's Next Top Model" and "Everybody Hates Chris" from UPN and "Gilmore Girls" and "Smallville" from WB.
Other probable contenders include "Veronica Mars," and several of the shows from the Monday night UPN comedy lineup of "One on One, " All of Us," "Girlfriends," and "Half and Half" as well as "Supernatural" and "Beauty and the Geek" from WB.
But marrying the two part-time networks will not be as easy as simply picking the most popular shows. For one thing, each network had quite different identities.
Shari Anne Brill, vice president and director of programming for Carat USA, a media buying firm, said that CW faced a serious challenge in making its shows appeal across the broad demographic it hopes to reach.
"The WB was not especially diverse creatively," she said, pointing to the lineup of angst-ridden, virtually all-white teenage-oriented shows that have dominated its programming.
By contrast, UPN grouped a batch of comedies with African-American casts on Mondays, giving it a stronger appeal to black viewers. But it has had more problems than WB in getting high prices for its programs.
WB took in about twice as much money from advertisers during the last upfront sales period. Now the two networks will have their shows mixed together. "We have to find the right flow," Ms. Ostroff said.
Still, there is no dispute over the necessity, from a business perspective, of combining the two struggling networks, analysts said.
"It was absolutely the right decision to merge," said Michael A. Kupinski, a media analyst with A. G. Edwards. Each network was losing money on its own, he pointed out. But mixing the networks, he cautioned, does not necessarily mean the new entity will instantly be more successful than the two were separately.
"One and one does not necessarily equal two in this case," Mr. Kupinski said — or even 1.5, he added.
Mr. Moonves agreed that simply putting the two networks together did not mean that the audiences from each would also merge. Some viewers will simply be set free and could migrate to other networks. Fox, as the other network with the youngest audience profile, could well enjoy some ratings bounce out of the change.
"We're making no predictions" about how CW will do in its first year, Mr. Moonves said. But he came awfully close.
"Day 1, we're going to be profitable at the network," he said. "Day 2, the stations we are on will be much stronger. And Day 3 we're going to have great programs that we'll each co-own. So that's a winner on three different levels."
So what about the name? At the meeting in March, the marketing department offered a list of about 15 potential names.
The selections were aimed at being as hip as possible: the Evo network; the Now network. There was a proposal to call it NXTV (as in "Next TV") or XYTV (for the audience generations being spoken to), or something even more avant-garde: the Angle network.
Then the market research people chimed in. Based only on the attention the announcement of the merged new network had received, the name CW had achieved a national awareness level of a surprising 48 percent, according to their own surveys.
"It took us three years to reach a level like that with the WB," Mr. Meyer said.
So much for Angle or XYTV. When executives from the new network meet this month with advertisers at the sales presentations known as the upfronts, it will be as the CW network. Asked his goal for CW this season, Mr. Meyer said, "Two brand-new hit shows."
But Mr. Moonves, knowing how fickle the audience is, was not so demanding. "I'd take one," he said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/02/business/media/02network.html?pagewanted=print
Sports Media and Business
Kiper Jr. Slips on Draft Board. The No. 1 Pick Is Mayock.
By Richard Sandomir The New York Times May 2, 2006
Remember this name: Mike Mayock. On Saturday, faced with better-known and certainly higher-paid analysts at ESPN during the National Football League draft, Mayock, the NFL Network's draft guru, lapped them all.
A former Giants defensive back and college football analyst for ABC, CBS, ESPN and Fox Sports Net, Mayock used superior insight to catapult himself beyond any voice at ESPN, which has carried the draft for 26 years.
It was Mayock who accurately predicted the Bills would select safety Donte Whitner with the eighth selection (while ESPN's Chris Berman hinted at a "curveball" coming, perhaps because the networks are told 15 seconds before the pick is announced), then said the Lions would take linebacker Ernie Sims with the ninth pick (while Berman said it would be the "highest-impact defensive player").
Mayock demonstrated his knowledge of the sport — matched at ESPN by only the terribly underused Ron Jaworski, tethered to a desk in Bristol, Conn. — early in the NFL Network's coverage. He produced a sophisticated analysis of the relative strengths of Matt Leinart and Jay Cutler, breaking down passing plays that underscored Leinart's better touch but Cutler's stronger arm.
Mayock was consistently more interesting than ESPN's draft maven, Mel Kiper Jr. Kiper is well informed, but Mayock interprets and explains better, perhaps because he was a player and has been in the broadcast booth.
What the NFL Network showed, in a side-by-side analysis of how it and ESPN covered the first 10 picks, is that less can be more. ESPN's formula — of more, more, more, from everywhere possible — needs tweaking. It bounced from its Radio City Music Hall set to Bristol to the "Cold Pizza" set, but could not outshine the surprisingly nimble NFL Network.
At Radio City, ESPN had Berman, Tom Jackson, Michael Irvin, Chris Mortensen and Kiper (with Steve Young chiming in by satellite), but this is an overwhelmingly pro football panel, not a college group. They can offer an N.F.L. perspective — if you can stomach Berman's weak attempts at humor and Irvin's refusal to speak in any tone less than a nearly incomprehensible shout.
Only Kiper is as knowledgeable about what these players did in college as Kirk Herbstreit, Lee Corso and Chris Fowler of ESPN's "College GameDay" program.
Meanwhile, from picks 1 to 10, the NFL Network stuck to one set, with Mayock; Rich Eisen, a comfortable host who did his job without unnecessary hyperbole or in the name of camaraderie; and Corey Chavous, a Rams safety who is something of a draft savant, and offered consistently good insights.
The NFL Network never strayed outside Radio City during those first 10 draft picks except for informative live interviews with Tennessee's coach, Jeff Fisher, and the recently hired New Orleans coach, Sean Payton. During that nearly two-hour period, ESPN had two of its best reporters, Ed Werder and Sal Paolantonio, in the field, but it did not have Fisher to explain why the Titans chose Vince Young with the third pick or how seriously the Saints entertained thoughts of trading the No. 2 pick to the Jets.
To his credit, Paolantonio reported the details of the Jets' offer, but Mayock explained the numerical "draft values" that the Jets were calculating in their attempt to lure the Saints into a trade they clearly would not make.
Mayock also gave the best explanation of the dynamics of the Titans' hierarchy that led to choosing Young; the ESPN analysts were too focused on why Norm Chow, who was an offensive coordinator for Leinart at Southern California and has the same job at Tennessee, will be tutoring Young.
Mayock then gave a fascinating assessment of Young's assets and flaws that went considerably beyond Kiper's. With video of two angles of a single play, he demonstrated how Young misread Southern California's pass coverage and threw right while his feet and hips were aligned to the left.
As sharp as Mayock was, he could not fix his network's tepid draft graphics, which the NFL Network knows must be improved. ESPN's were complete, omnipresent and sometimes dizzying. Graphically, ESPN was superior, although it need not herald each pick by scrawling "CURRENT SELECTION ALERT" on the screen as if it were an upgraded terrorism alert.
Visually, using pretty much the same material, the NFL Network showed more ambition, following drafted players around the legendary Radio City theater, and also using split screens of two players and of players and Commissioner Paul Tagliabue. The split screen was most effective when D'Brickashaw Ferguson celebrated his selection at No. 4 by the Jets while Leinart looked befuddled at his slippage, but it worked poorly when Leinart was mistakenly seen in duplicate.
ESPN's on-site reporting was slightly better, most notably Suzy Kolber's interview with Leinart's agent, Tom Condon, as Leinart sat waiting to be drafted. And Mortensen quite rightly offered an early and cogent explanation of an investigation into a report that Bush's parents had been living rent-free in a house owned by a man who had hoped to market Bush.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/02/sports/football/02sandomir.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print
Sports On TV
ESPN sweeps Sports Emmys with 10
By Toni Fitzgerald MediaLifeMagazine.com staff writer May 2, 2006
Even without “Monday Night Football,” sports’ glamour show, ESPN networks picked up 10 awards at last night’s Sports Emmys. Next year things could get even sweeter, with “MNF” making the jump to ESPN this fall.
ESPN shows dominated the Sports Emmys, with ESPN and ESPN2 each winning four awards apiece.
The network also got one editing award for an ESPN Classic show and picked up the first-ever Sports Emmy broadband award for an animated webcast called “Off Mikes.” Of course, with three of the category’s nominations, ESPN.com was expected to win.
The network also collaborated on one of ABC’s three wins, providing production support for its X Games coverage, which won best live event turnaround. That edged NBC’s Summer Olympic Games.
ESPN’s Jeremy Schaap won the Dick Schaap Outstanding Writing Award, named for his late father, for a “SportsCenter” piece called “Finding Bobby Fischer.”
ESPN2’s “Cinderella Man: The James J. Braddock Story” picked up two awards, for outstanding camera work and production design/art direction.
“MNF” received four nominations, second-most of any show. It lost to Fox’s NASCAR coverage in the live sports series category, but John Madden won outstanding studio analyst for his work on the show. It will move to ESPN this fall, when Mike Tirico, Joe Theismann and Tony Kornheiser will take over announcing duties from Madden and Al Michaels, who move to NBC’s “Sunday Night Football.”
That should help punch up NBC’s haul. Despite 14 nominations for the Olympics, which