or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › HDTV Programming › Hot Off The Press: The Latest TV News and Information
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Hot Off The Press: The Latest TV News and Information - Page 2421

post #72601 of 93656
TV Notes
Damian Lewis happy to be troubled in 'Homeland'
The British actor is invigorated by the complexities of his role in the Showtime drama, in which he portrays a Marine freed from captivity in Afghanistan
By Greg Braxton, Los Angeles Times - October 9th, 2011

Damian Lewis has played a vast range of characters, from emotionally racked fathers to villainous aristocrats. But his recent television projects suggest that he's developing a specialty: prisoners who find life outside to have its own considerable challenges.

In NBC's quirky series "Life," Lewis played an ex-cop released after years of being wrongly imprisoned. And now in Showtime's "Homeland," which premiered Oct. 2, Lewis takes on the role of Marine Sgt. Nicholas Brody, who is rescued after spending eight years in Afghanistan as a POW. Although he returns home a war hero, he is obviously troubled. A CIA agent believes Brody may actually be planning a terrorist attack against America.

"These two men do seem to have similarities," said Lewis recently by phone during a break in the filming of the drama, which is winding up production of its final first-season episodes in North Carolina. "They both seek revenge. There's a vigilantism to both of them."

Brody in the initial episodes is ominously quiet, conveying a turmoil beneath his haunted expressions, highlighted by strikingly blue eyes. "He's a controlled explosion," Lewis said.

The British actor, who makes his home in London with his wife and two daughters, has been delighted with the twists and turns in "Homeland." It stars Claire Danes as driven CIA agent Carrie Mathison, who is battling her own demons as she obsessively pursues her suspicions about Brody. The series also features Mandy Patinkin as Mathison's mentor.

"I'm surprised by the honesty of the writers — they have remained true to what they had originally pitched to me," said Lewis, who undertook extensive research, including talking with former soldiers, reading firsthand accounts about post-traumatic stress disorder, and studying the Koran.

He's invigorated by the complexity of his character and the series' post-Sept. 11 perspectives: "This is really an explosive and controversial character. And what's important to me in this piece is that any preconceptions about who's bad and who's good are challenged. The world is revealed as less black-and-white than some people believe."

Executive producer Howard Gordon said he and fellow executive producer Alex Gansa (they previously worked together on "24" and "X Files") felt that Brody was the most difficult of the main characters to cast and the most difficult to play. "Part of it is not knowing who he is and knowing who he is." He called Lewis "an extraordinary actor with an all-American face, which is astounding because he's British. He takes the role very seriously, and he's done his homework."

Brody is the latest in a career of critically acclaimed performances for Lewis. He won numerous accolades for his turn in the 2004 movie "Keane," in which he portrayed a grief-stricken, mentally ill father wandering around New York in search of his daughter. He also played the villainous British aristocrat Soames Forsyte in "The Forsyte Saga."

Audiences are most likely to remember him as the heroic Richard Winters in HBO's World War II epic "Band of Brothers," however. Winters became the miniseries' central character as he rose through the ranks to become a major. Lewis said he still regularly hears from fans of "Band of Brothers," which just celebrated its 10th anniversary.

A more bittersweet experience for the actor was "Life," which ran from 2007 to 2009 and was canceled after two seasons despite a devoted fan base and critical support.

"It was outrageous that 'Life' was canceled," Lewis said. "It was bad decision-making by NBC at a time when bad decision-making was the norm there. The creators of the show deserved better — the American Film Institute called it a transcendent show. I feel very nostalgic for that show — I thought it was exquisitely executed."

However, the series also took its toll personally. His wife was pregnant with their second child, the family had just moved into a new house and he was overseas shooting. Because he was the central character, the schedule was relentless.

"From a personal point of view, I bit off more than I could chew, so two seasons was probably about right," he said. He added with a chuckle, "And I'm still with my wife."

"Homeland" is turning out to be a more rewarding experience: Lewis said he "loves" working with Danes and Patinkin.

"I feel incredibly lucky," he said. "The shows are big commitments, and there's nothing more discouraging than knowing you're not reaching creative points where there's so many opportunities to really fly. It feels great to be here."

HOMELAND
Sundays at 10 p.m. on Showtime


http://www.latimes.com/entertainment...,4716365.story
post #72602 of 93656
TV Review
As endgame nears, Breaking Bad' moves are masterful
By Matthew Gilbert, Boston Globe - October 8th, 2011

There's an odd gentlemanliness about Gus Fring on AMC's Breaking Bad,'' as brilliantly played by Giancarlo Esposito. He's contained and composed, almost as still as a wax replica of himself. Only the slightest of smirks escapes his lips, and the hint of a furrow may appear on his brow on rare occasions. Before
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Spoiler  
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
he vomited poison a few weeks back
, he removed and carefully folded his jacket, then put a towel in front of the toilet to protect his knees.

Of course, the elegant Gus is a gentleman monster, one who plainly stated to Walt last Sunday,
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Spoiler  
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
I will kill your infant daughter.''
And at the start of the season,
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Spoiler  
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
he murdered one of his workers with a box cutter as if he were removing a stubborn bit of lint from his coat.
On the outside, Gus is a stolid cast iron stove, thanks to Esposito's precise, minimalist affect and body language; inside, though, we know he's a caldron of hatred, revenge, and dominance.

This has been the season of Gus on Breaking Bad,'' as the major meth distributor has toyed ruthlessly with Bryan Cranston's Walt and Aaron Paul's Jesse. Using the strategic skills of a chess genius, he has played the pair - the strangest buddy team on TV - against each other and into a corner. And he has almost achieved checkmate as the season finale approaches, on Sunday at 10 p.m. In this last episode, which I haven't seen (so no spoilers here), we will likely find out whether Walt and Jesse will remain Gus's pawns or become the new rulers of the board.

I can't wait. Four seasons in, Breaking Bad'' remains one of TV's most enthralling series. Like Gus's temperament, the drama is slow and deliberate on one level, with scenes - such as Walt and Skyler's
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Spoiler  
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
rehearsal of the gambling lie they'd tell their family
- that last longer than any others on TV. At times, you almost feel as if you're in the room with these people, in a heightened real time. But then Breaking Bad'' is on fire from within, as moments of violent action burst forth and as the character's motives play out fiercely on their faces.

Creator Vince Gilligan makes every episode into a series of expertly orchestrated set pieces, each one built for maximum effect. Off the top of my head, I can think of 10 sequences from this season alone that were dramatic gems, including
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Spoiler  
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
the poisoning of the cartel, Walt telling Walt Jr. about his weakened father, Marie faking her way through an open house, Walt suggesting to Hank that WW'' stood for Walt Whitman,
and, most hauntingly,
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Spoiler  
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Walt laughing maniacally under the floorboards.
These suspended moments are written so efficiently, performed so seamlessly, and filmed with such savvy formal flourishes that they could double as self-standing shorts.

Gilligan has also taken care to make the radical changes in his characters feel authentic across the seasons. Walt, Jesse, and Anna Gunn's Skyler act like different people than they did when we first met them, but each step of their development has come out of the previous stage organically. It's not like they've become unrecognizable; it's more like selves that were latent or hidden within them have emerged incrementally with each new situational challenge.

I've loved the way Walt's ego, initially so deflated as a chemistry teacher, has grown to the point where, in episode 5 of this season, he had to
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Spoiler  
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
brag to Hank that meth-maker Gale was not a genius and had probably stolen someone else's work. He couldn't resist that moment of self-destructive bragging.
And Skyler is enjoying her newfound power, too, even while it terrifies her. She couldn't help but
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Spoiler  
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
let Ted Beneke know that she was responsible for her newfound riches.
Jesse, meanwhile, has been artificially puffed up by Gus, but he has found himself in the process, notably by
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Spoiler  
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
insisting that Gus let Mr. White'' live.


What will happen on Sunday? Will Hank realize that
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Spoiler  
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Walt is Heisenberg, or is Gilligan saving that juicy business for later on?
Gilligan has said he will be making only 16 more episodes after this season, so the endgame is close. I'm thinking Mike
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Spoiler  
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
will return from his sick bed tomorrow night, aware that Jesse helped to save his life and willing to assist him and Walt against Gus.
But that's just a theory; anything can happen on Breaking Bad.'' You don't see things coming, but when they arrive they make perfect sense.

BREAKING BAD
On: AMC
Time: Sunday, 10-11 p.m.


http://www.boston.com/ae/tv/articles...fourth_season/
post #72603 of 93656
When is the Nielsen benchmark going to be eliminated?
post #72604 of 93656
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vipfreak View Post

How did bored to death make it past season 1... ?

It's pretty funny/entertaining? Schwartzman, Danson and Galifianakis are great on it.

It's also written by this guy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQJyMRsLkRc

How could you not watch a show written by him? He's frigging hilarious.
post #72605 of 93656
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vipfreak View Post

How did bored to death make it past season 1... ?

Because they want their viewers to be bored to death in season 2.
post #72606 of 93656
Technology Notes
Thanks to the Web, Homes Without Cable Will Triple by 2016
By John Paul Titlow, ReadWriteWeb.com - October 7th, 2011

As more TV viewers watch their favorite shows online, the number of U.S. households without a cable subscription is expected to rise dramatically between now and 2016, according to a new report from Magnaglobal, a media forecasting firm.

By 2016, the number of households that do not subscribe to a traditional pay TV service will triple from what it is today. All told, 9 million households won't have cable, Magnaglobal predicts. Of those, about 4 million are what we'd call cord cutters; people who once subscribed to cable but canceled it in favor of accessing television content via the Internet using a set top box or computer hooked up to their TV sets.

Comprising an even bigger number of cable-free consumers will be those who never signed up for cable or satellite service in the first place. This group of consumers is growing. Teenagers live more and more of their lives online, where they consume most of their media, even if their parents are paying for cable subscription at home. As that generation goes away to college, there's little reason for many of them to pay up for cable TV on campus when Hulu, Netflix and a variety of competiting services await them. Once they graduate and enter the job market, cable is just not something they are likely to feel they need.

The number of people who never signed up for cable is expected to double - to 5 million, from 2.5 million today - by 2016, according to the report. Meanwhile, growth of DVR ownership is expected to slow down, as the devices become less necessary in light of stream-anytime Web content sitting waiting in people's video queues.

The cable industry, having seen this coming, is preparing its own preemptive strikes. Comcast and Verizon are rumored to be bringing cable subcriptions to Microsoft's XBox 360, a gaming console that effectively doubles as a set-top box. Comcast has rolled out its own Web TV initiative called "TV Anywhere" that lets paying subscribers watch content from a variety of devices. They also bought a giant content company, just in case.

http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives...s_increase.php
post #72607 of 93656
Quote:
Originally Posted by dad1153 View Post

Technology Notes
Thanks to the Web, Homes Without Cable Will Triple by 2016
By John Paul Titlow, ReadWriteWeb.com - October 7th, 2011

As more TV viewers watch their favorite shows online, the number of U.S. households without a cable subscription is expected to rise dramatically between now and 2016, according to a new report from Magnaglobal, a media forecasting firm.

http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives...s_increase.php

I wonder if there's anyone keeping track of these predictions. They always seem to be placed far enough out into the future that people will likely forget them should they be wrong.

Personally, I'd be willing to bet that if the economy is humming really well by that point, we'll see people willing to get back to subscription models of all kinds - and more of them, to boot. I wouldn't be surprised to see similar to current numbers with people also paying for premium online video services, in particular VOD. I see more money being laid out, not less.

People seem less opposed to paying for subscription services they may not use when they have a steady paycheck and reasonable job security.

Further, if the ISPs have anything to do with it, they'll crush the life out of most of the competition for multi-channel services to the point where people will go back out of frustration over not being able to see the shows they like. Plus, the multi-channel providers will be working ovetime to add features that are currently pulling customers away to other things as well as bundling stuff to make it cost ineffective to not subscribe.
post #72608 of 93656
As long as the MVPDs are also the major ISPs, they're going to get their money no matter what. And the government is just going to stand by and let them do whatever they want with the duopolies (or monopolies) we have for HSI in most markets. They keep saying that wireless will provide effective competition, but it never does and we're all going to suffer in the end.
post #72609 of 93656
SATURDAY's fast affiliate overnight prime-time ratings -and what they mean- have been posted on Analyst Marc Berman's Media INsight's Blog.
post #72610 of 93656
Quote:
Originally Posted by slowbiscuit View Post

As long as the MVPDs are also the major ISPs, they're going to get their money no matter what. And the government is just going to stand by and let them do whatever they want with the duopolies (or monopolies) we have for HSI in most markets. They keep saying that wireless will provide effective competition, but it never does and we're all going to suffer in the end.

Yep, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The divide just keeps widening. Remember the good old days when the customer dictated what they wanted and businesses tried to accommodate them, instead of the big business attitude of take what I give you and be happy about it, because I'll crush any business that tries to make a go of it, as I count your money all the way to the bank.
post #72611 of 93656
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebkell View Post

Yep, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The divide just keeps widening. Remember the good old days when the customer dictated what they wanted and businesses tried to accommodate them, instead of the big business attitude of take what I give you and be happy about it, because I'll crush any business that tries to make a go of it, as I count your money all the way to the bank.

Yes, business, at least big business, has lost the concept of reasonable profits, something mom & pop shops from days gone by had in abundance. Mom & pop were part of the neighborhood and generally didn't want to screw their friends and neighbors. Big business is a faceless entity that bows to shareholders and not the customer. They dangle prices barely affordable and we don't help. Note most new ads for things like iPad2's, "affordable" seems to be the keyword. To use a timely example, I think Steve Jobs (IP) was exceptional, but let's not forget that he and Apple made/make billions off us. Couldn't they still make millions if they cut the cost of the iPad2 in half? Just how much do these greedy people need?
post #72612 of 93656
A better example would be "big oil"; virtually everyone needs petro, while an iPod or iPad is hardly a nessecity.
post #72613 of 93656
Quote:
Originally Posted by rezzy View Post

A better example would be "big oil"; virtually everyone needs petro, while an iPod or iPad is hardly a nessecity.

Exactly.

Apple can make all the expensive products they want. No one needs an Ipad. Even if you would benefit from a tablet computer, there are plenty of far cheaper options. It's not fair to fault Cadillac or Mercedes for high prices on their luxury vehicles any more than you can fault Apple for creating a "luxury level" tablet, phone, laptop or music player.

However, things like internet service are all but utilities at this point. Even though many people only use it for frivolous stuff, there are plenty of legitimate uses, like just looking up a phone number when your phone company has ceased providing phone books.
post #72614 of 93656
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post

Exactly.

Apple can make all the expensive products they want. No one needs an Ipad. Even if you would benefit from a tablet computer, there are plenty of far cheaper options. It's not fair to fault Cadillac or Mercedes for high prices on their luxury vehicles any more than you can fault Apple for creating a "luxury level" tablet, phone, laptop or music player.

However, things like internet service are all but utilities at this point. Even though many people only use it for frivolous stuff, there are plenty of legitimate uses, like just looking up a phone number when your phone company has ceased providing phone books.

Sorry, but I think greed is greed, whether it be for necessities or what you call "luxuries". There used to be a day when Bill Gates and Steve Jobs both would have agreed with me about excessive profits. In fact, both did what they did because of the greed of big business at the time, at least in part. In the beginning, their profits meant more funds for innovation and the profits were poured back into the company. However, something happened after the first billion or so and they joined the corporate crowd.

And, I don't NEED the internet either, so I consider THAT a luxury, and I can still get phone books if I ask for them, as do my relatives in Small Town WI.

And, there are only 12 billionaires in the Top 100 Richest in America who have anything to do with oil and the first one is found way down at #30, and even he is not solely in oil. Now, I wonder who's at the top of that list and how many other computer people are in there? I'll give you a hint --it's MORE.

I'm all for capitalism and profit, but greed has to be tempered. And that's all I'm going to say on the subject.
post #72615 of 93656
Can't really compare oil and tech. Windows and Apple are first-generation fortunes. Oil fortunes have been diluted by the passing of time, which is why companies, like Exxon, rather than individuals, like Gates or Jobs, define the industry. But 100 years ago, John Rockefeller would've been the equivalent of a Gates or Jobs (and adjusted for inflation, his wealth would trump even their combined wealth several fold). At his death, Rockefeller is estimated to have personally held 1.5% of the entire U.S. economy. Today, that would equate to personal wealth of $210 billion. Combine Gates and Jobs, you get less than a fourth of that size wealth.

Also, it's important to consider that once upon a time, we believed in breaking up monopolies--and we dismantled a significant part of the Rockefeller fortune in the 20th century when Standard Oil was split up. We have never done that in the computing space. That's another reason why there are no more oil barons.
post #72616 of 93656
Quote:
Originally Posted by URFloorMatt View Post

Also, it's important to consider that once upon a time, we believed in breaking up monopolies--and we dismantled a significant part of the Rockefeller fortune in the 20th century when Standard Oil was split up. We have never done that in the computing space. That's another reason why there are no more oil barons.

Well, we did break up AT&T. Who in the "computing space" do you think is worthy of breaking up?
post #72617 of 93656
Quote:
Originally Posted by grittree View Post

Well, we did break up AT&T. Who in the "computing space" do you think is worthy of breaking up?

Yes, but like the Borg AT&T is trying it's damnedest to reconstruct that monopoly, or at the least be one part of a duopoly.
post #72618 of 93656
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoubleDAZ View Post

Sorry, but I think greed is greed, whether it be for necessities or what you call "luxuries". There used to be a day when Bill Gates and Steve Jobs both would have agreed with me about excessive profits. In fact, both did what they did because of the greed of big business at the time, at least in part. In the beginning, their profits meant more funds for innovation and the profits were poured back into the company. However, something happened after the first billion or so and they joined the corporate crowd.

Something to note about Gates and Jobs, Gates has been giving away his money at a rate not seen before in history, while there appeared to be no outward indications of any sort of philanthropy from Jobs, other than the money he gave to research into the particular sort of cancer he was inflicted with. Maybe Jobs did it quietly, then again, maybe not at all.
post #72619 of 93656
Quote:
Originally Posted by keenan View Post

Something to note about Gates and Jobs, Gates has been giving away his money at a rate not seen before in history, while there appeared to be no outward indications of any sort of philanthropy from Jobs, other than the money he gave to research into the particular sort of cancer he was inflicted with. Maybe Jobs did it quietly, then again, maybe not at all.

Hey, I'm not bashing Jobs or Gates, I admire both men. I'm just complaining about what I see as the current state of affairs regarding profits and the completely expected opposing view of some members.

And, yes, there have been the Rockefellers of the past too, but not near on the same par in numbers as today, at least not IMHO.

And, I also realize that much of the current wealth disparity comes simply from the fact that the wealthy don't dilute their wealth by spending like the rest of us have to just to live day by day. They can afford all they want and still leave millions in investments to increase over time. The rest of us can barely put money in our savings/retirement accounts. Therefore, the rich get richer and I'm not saying it's all due to obscene profits or a lack of charity. You must admit though that it's pretty darned easy to be charitable when you have billions and continue to make billions.
post #72620 of 93656
Quote:
Originally Posted by grittree View Post

Well, we did break up AT&T. Who in the "computing space" do you think is worthy of breaking up?

At some point, Google may well be. But that wasn't really my point. I was just responding to this:

Quote:
And, there are only 12 billionaires in the Top 100 Richest in America who have anything to do with oil and the first one is found way down at #30, and even he is not solely in oil. Now, I wonder who's at the top of that list and how many other computer people are in there? I'll give you a hint --it's MORE.

It's not a fair comparison because we spent a lot of effort trustbusting the oil industry and we've spent virtually none in the computing space.

Quote:
Originally Posted by keenan View Post

Something to note about Gates and Jobs, Gates has been giving away his money at a rate not seen before in history, while there appeared to be no outward indications of any sort of philanthropy from Jobs, other than the money he gave to research into the particular sort of cancer he was inflicted with. Maybe Jobs did it quietly, then again, maybe not at all.

It seems highly unfair to criticize Jobs for not being wildly public about his charitable giving since many wealthy people are very, very discreet about their public giving. But even if Jobs has never given away a dime to charity, his estate is worth $9 billion. Gates has $45 billion, so Gates could dump $30 billion to charity and still have almost twice as much money in his estate as Jobs.

Granted, I'm not saying you need $9 billion to live comfortably, but it's hard to applaud Gates for giving away his money to charity when he has so much of it that it's beyond value to him anymore.
post #72621 of 93656
Quote:
Originally Posted by URFloorMatt View Post

Granted, I'm not saying you need $9 billion to live comfortably, but it's hard to applaud Gates for giving away his money to charity when he has so much of it that it's beyond value to him anymore.

Let me try this. Paul Newman started Newman's Own and profits go to charity. Even Bill O'Reilly started oreilly.com and profits go to charity. With $45B, why doesn't Bill Gates now give away Microsoft profits? I guess I just don't know when enough is enough. I hate to agree with Roseanne Barr, but what does anything over $100M mean???
post #72622 of 93656
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoubleDAZ View Post

Let me try this. Paul Newman started Newman's Own and profits go to charity. Even Bill O'Reilly started oreilly.com and profits go to charity. With $45B, why doesn't Bill Gates now give away Microsoft profits? I guess I just don't know when enough is enough. I hate to agree with Roseanne Barr, but what does anything over $100M mean???

It means nothing. At that point, at that level, it's just a way of keeping score. The smart kids in the class know who the good guys are.
post #72623 of 93656
Obituary
Doris Belack, Judge on TV’s ‘Law & Order,’ Dies at 85
By Paul Vitello, The New York Times - October 9th, 2011

Doris Belack, a veteran stage, television and screen actress best known for her roles as a no-nonsense judge on “Law & Order” and as the peeved soap opera producer in “Tootsie,” died on Tuesday in New York. She was 85.

Her death, which was confirmed by a family friend, Jason Watkins, came four months after the death of her husband, Philip Rose, the influential Broadway producer of “A Raisin in the Sun” and “Purlie Victorious,” both considered breakthroughs for racial equality in American theater. The couple were married for 65 years.

Ms. Belack played many roles on Broadway, and worked steadily in television beginning in the early 1960s. She had parts in “The Patty Duke Show,” “The Defenders,” “Barney Miller,” “Family Ties” and “The Cosby Show,” and a recurring role in the soap opera “One Life to Live” from 1968 to 1977. She appeared as Judge Margaret Barry on “Law & Order” in the 1990s.

As the tough-minded TV producer in the 1982 film “Tootsie” (who unwittingly casts a disguised Dustin Hoffman in a woman’s role in a soap opera), Ms. Belack was praised for the comic lightness with which she reinforced the film’s feminist themes.

The authority-figure role she played in her later years tapped into one side of Ms. Belack: she expected dinner guests to arrive punctually and maintained an Old World sense of propriety that she occasionally enforced with an acerbic wit. But at her core, she once said, was the desire to act.

She considered it a calling. “You can’t act, you mustn’t act, you shouldn’t act,” she said in a 1979 interview with The New York Times, “unless it’s the only thing in the world you want to do.”

Doris Belack was born on Feb. 26, 1926, in New York City, the younger of two daughters of Isaac and Bertha Belack, Jewish immigrants from Russia. She joined a summer stock theater company immediately after graduating from high school, and within months she met Mr. Rose, then an actor and singer.

Ms. Belack and her husband shared convictions about race and civil rights that made them full partners in the unlikely success of Mr. Rose’s efforts, friends said, especially in bringing “A Raisin in the Sun” to Broadway in 1959.

Already considered a long shot for being a nonmusical drama about blacks written by a black playwright, it was the first play Mr. Rose had ever produced.

“But she not only supported the idea, she worked and supported them both while Philip went around raising money to produce ‘Raisin,’ ” said Elizabeth Perry, an actress, playwright and friend. “She was a strong liberal voice, and she had a lot of influence over his choices.”

In her last years, Ms. Belack continued working in commercials and as a voice actor. She went to auditions regularly until the week before she died. When a final bout of illness led her friends to urge her to go to the hospital a couple of Sundays ago, she brushed them off because she had an audition the next day.

She made it to the audition, and then went to the hospital.

“I saw her a few days later,” said Esther Margolis, a book publisher and longtime friend. “She told me: ‘Would you believe it? I got a callback.’ ”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/10/ar...ref=television
post #72624 of 93656
TV Notes
Tim Allen goes home again to TV comedy
By Bill Keveney, USA Today - October 9th, 2011

Many performers are unhappy when a new project is said to be similar to earlier work. Tim Allen isn't one of them.

His ABC comedy, Last Man Standing (premieres Tuesday, 8 p.m. ET/PT), bears more than a passing resemblance to his 1990s hit, Home Improvement.

"Someone said to me, 'It's not that far from that last show,'" Allen says. "I said, 'No, because I liked that last show.'"

As Mike Baxter, Allen again is the married father of three girls, this time and his job at a sporting goods store now has him playing with guns and binoculars instead of Home's hammers and nails. He goes more modern in finding an outlet for his stand-up skills, doing a video blog instead of Tool Time, his Home show-within-a-show. There's even a Wilson figure, boss and friend Ed (Hector Elizondo), although the audience sees this character's face.

If viewers want to compare Man to Home, which ended in 1999, Allen, 58, would be "delighted." He believes viewers will still enjoy the familiar, if it's done right. "Do we still like hamburgers and french fries and good milkshakes? We'll see on Tuesday night, because that's what I equate this to. This is not new food. You've had this food before."

He says Home, a huge ratings hit, ended before its time, but he wanted to go out on top, like pro athletes John Elway or Wayne Gretzky. He spent the interim years working on feature films, including the Santa Clause and Toy Story franchises, and he still does stand-up comedy.

Nancy Travis, who plays Mike's wife, Vanessa, says Allen's expertise in the sitcom format is apparent.

"I'm very impressed with how smart he is about it and just the experience from Home Improvement that he brings to the making of this. You're trying to cobble together a world, a family and a workplace," she says. "You really have to be true to what those characters' motivations are. It's not just about writing jokey situations."

Allen says he's intrigued by the idea of a man surrounded by a wife and three daughters two teens (Kaitlyn Dever and Molly Ephraim) and a 20-year-old (Alexandra Krosney) who is a single mother.

"Mostly, it's my comedy. It's based on 'I don't get 'em.' I do all of my jokes about women: love women, admire women, frightened of women, dislike women. I just so love women and then sometimes you just have no clue," says Allen, who has two daughters in real life.

Mike is drawn more into his daughters' world when his frequent work travel ceases and his wife's workload expands after a promotion. That should make for good comedic situations, Allen says.

"I'm not a broadcaster for women's rights, but it's going to be awfully fun in this show to be finding my girls getting second-classed and I'm their dad and he's a tough guy," he says. "Being a champion for three boys in Home Improvement was one thing, but being the champion for three daughters is another."

http://www.usatoday.com/life/televis...ing/50713660/1
post #72625 of 93656
No political/religious comments, please!

Critic's Notes
Abortion a muted matter on 'Grey's Anatomy'
By Mary McNamara, Los Angeles Times - October 9th, 2011

Caught between a bunny and a new girl, the talk of TV this season has been double-X, as in chromosome.

What's up with all the women? They're saying "vagina" and going all Count of Monte Cristo! "New Girl" is adork-able (or is she?), "Pan Am" is a female-centric "Mad Men" (or is it?), "The Playboy Club" glamorizes sexism and "Charlie's Angels" is even more ridiculous the second time around! After the 2010-11 season proved dismal for non-males, women came back with a vengeance.

We were all so busy talking about the Big Trend that we missed the revolution. During the recent eighth-season premiere of ABC's "Grey's Anatomy," Dr. Cristina Yang (Sandra Oh) had an abortion.

It was not the first abortion for a character on network television that would be "Maude's" in 1972, just before Roe vs. Wade made abortion legal nationwide but it was the most culturally significant since then. Because unlike virtually every character who has ever had, or contemplated, an abortion (and on TV, fewer women have abortions than have brain surgery), Cristina is not a teenager, or a rape or an incest victim. She is not poor with eight kids and an abusive husband or suffering from mental illness. She does not have a rare disease that makes pregnancy a physical risk. Unlike Maude, she isn't an "older" woman with mid-life concerns. Cristina is married, healthy, financially stable and of prime childbearing years.

She chose to have an abortion because she did not want to have a child.

Watching, it was difficult to believe she, and "Grey's Anatomy" creator Shonda Rhimes, would go through with it. Television traditionally acknowledges the fact of abortion by having a character contemplate it, then either decide to have the baby, as on the first season of "Glee" and last season's "Private Practice" (another Rhimes creation), or be "spared" the decision by miscarriage, which is what happened to Cristina on the first season of "Grey's."

Part of this is politics. Abortion evokes an emotional response, often bordering on hysteria, from both sides of the ideological divide that other issues tax reform, immigration policy, healthcare do not. Only gay marriage comes close, and that is not nearly so narratively problematic love is intrinsically celebratory, but no matter how you frame it, abortion is a downer. It has no happy ending.

And, given its rarefied status, abortion typically demands a high level of emotional drama, not to mention center stage. On last year's "Friday Night Lights," Becky (Madison Burge) had an abortion, but only after she suffered the requisite amount of soul-searching and angst. And she was in 10th grade, which made her agonized confession that she was not prepared to have a baby fairly self-evident.

Cristina, on the other hand, did not seem particularly agonized. She seemed, as she said she was, scared and sad, but she knew that she did not want to have a baby. She was offered the traditional narrative pullouts the children of colleagues surrounded her with adorableness on their way to the hospital's on-site daycare. (Look! Daycare! On site!) Her husband, Owen (Kevin McKidd), did not agree with her decision; her best friend, Meredith (Ellen Pompeo), was coping with motherhood issues of her own. But when Meredith seemed about to give The Speech, the one in which the mother persuades the pregnant friend that she can't afford to miss the joys of child-rearing, Cristina says simply: "I need you to get this."

Indeed, it is Meredith who finally explains, in a speech that circumvents the tar pit that is the having-it-all myth with breathtaking brevity, that if Cristina has a child, she will not be able to become the surgeon she has worked so hard to be and the guilt from resenting her own child will practically kill her.

Owen finally gets it too and accompanies Cristina to the operating theater where we see her actually in the stirrups saying yes to the doctor who asks, one final time, if this is what she wants. The two hold hands, and the episode moves on.

Because, miraculously, the abortion was not the focus of the premiere a more pressing story line revolved around a giant sinkhole in the middle of Seattle. Its secondary status may help explain why the ACLU was one of the few organizations to even acknowledge the event, which it did by posting a congratulatory note on its website. There were a few small articles online New York magazine interviewed Rhimes but no flood of outrage from the religious right or conservative groups, no high-fiving among supporters of abortion rights or feminists; both sets seemed more concerned about the message NBC was sending with the now-canceled "The Playboy Club."

Some of the relative quiet can be attributed to its advancing years. "Grey's" is entering its eighth season and is holding a cultural currency that has never quite recovered from past internal and narrative scandals (Isaiah Washington's homophobic slurs, Denny's ghost). Which is a lesson in itself after its premiere, TV critics and industry watchers anointed the series, and Rhimes, a game changer. "Grey's Anatomy" had more women than men in its writers room, and it had more people of color in lead roles than almost any other show on television. The show's big numbers seemed to herald a time when others might follow suit. (They didn't.)

A smaller but still significant seismic event occurred on the season premiere of "The Good Wife." After two seasons of juggling work, kids and a very troubled marriage, Alicia (Julianna Margulies) learned of one betrayal too many and decided to consummate her long-roiling relationship with her boss and friend, Will (Josh Charles). The ad campaign for the new season featured Margulies in a black slip and pillowcase hair, but the premiere was (mercifully) much more sophisticated.

Yes, there is a new spring in Alicia's step but she didn't spend the next day dreamily twiddling her hair and speed-dialing her friends the only friend she had was involved in the above-mentioned betrayal and they didn't have that kind of ghastly "Sex and the City" friendship anyway. Instead, Alicia is still very much focused on her work, her kids and what remains of the relationship with her finally-kicked-to-the-curb husband.

It didn't have the same punch of "Grey's" Cristina story line, but the underlying theme is similar female characters do not need to follow well-worn templates that some have claimed are writ by biology: She gets pregnant, she has a baby, she figures out how to be a working mom; she breaks up with the bad guy, falls for the good guy and realizes that the only thing that really matters is following her heart. Women, like men, can take two steps forward and one step back, then two steps forward again. They can reject television's traditionally narrow definitions of love and responsibility and still be lovable and responsible.

In television, as in life, real change is not big and new and flashy. It's not about how many women are on TV. It's not about the "Bridesmaids" effect or Whitney Cummings having two shows on competing networks.

Real change is slow and persistent, and often overlooked and occasionally irritating. It's about what women are doing on TV, and why they are doing it. It's about Alicia Florrick having great sex and then showing up at work in the morning, dealing with parental issues and getting her daughter a tutor.

And it's about Cristina Yang exercising her legal right to an abortion because she doesn't want to be a mother, and nobody really noticing.

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment...,7434324.story
post #72626 of 93656
TV Notes
On The Air Tonight
MONDAY Network Primetime/Late Night Options
(All shows are in HD unless noted; start times are EDT. Network late night shows are preceded by late local news)

ABC:
8PM - Dancing with the Stars (LIVE, 120 min.)
10:01PM - Castle
* * * *
11:35PM - Nightline (LIVE)
Midnight - Jimmy Kimmel Live! (Paula Abdul; Kenny Wormald; Two Door Cinema Club performs)

CBS:
8PM - How I Met Your Mother
8:30PM - 2 Broke Girls
9PM - Two and a Half Men
9:30PM - Mike & Molly
10PM - Hawaii Five-0
* * * *
11:35PM - Late Show with David Letterman (Tracy Morgan; sportscasters Mike Golic and Mike Greenberg)
12:37AM - Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson (Claire Danes; Betty White)

NBC:
8PM - The Sing-Off (120 min.)
10PM - Prime Suspect
(R)
* * * *
11:35PM - The Tonight Show with Jay Leno (Aaron Eckhart; Julianne Hough; Amos Lee performs)
12:37AM - Late Night with Jimmy Fallon (Ice-T; Rich Fulcher; a performance from Yo Gabba Gabba!)
1:36AM - Last Call with Carson Daly (TV producer Doug Ellin; Kreayshawn and Atmosphere perform) SD
(R)

FOX:
8PM - Terra Nova
9PM - House

PBS:
(check your local listing for starting time/programming)
8PM - Antiques Roadshow: Raleigh, NC (R)
9PM - The War of 1812 (120 min.)

UNIVISION:
8PM - Una Familia con Suerte
9PM - La Fuerza del Destino
10PM - Don Francisco Presenta

THE CW:
8PM - Gossip Girl
9PM - Hart of Dixie

TELEMUNDO:
8PM - Mi Corazón Insiste
9PM - Flor Salvaje
10PM - La Casa de al Lado

COMEDY CENTRAL:
11PM - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart (Author Michael Lewis)
(R)
11:31PM - The Colbert Report (Mos Def and Talib Kweli)
(R)

TBS:
After the MLB Playoff Game - Conan (Ty Burrell; Jillian Michaels; Ryan Adams performs)

E!:
11PM - Chelsea Lately (TV reality stars Kendra Wilkinson-Baskett and Hank Baskett; comic Michael Yo; comic Heather McDonald; TV personality Ross Mathews)
post #72627 of 93656
TV Notes
Monday's Highlights: 'House' on Fox
By Los Angeles Times' 'Show Tracker' Blog - October 9th, 2011

[ALL TIMES LISTED ARE PACIFIC TIME]

BOUNDARIES: When House (Hugh Laurie) returns Wilson (Robert Sean Leonard) resists his efforts to resume their friendship on a new episode of House on 9 p.m. Fox.

SERIES

Tom Reed's For Members Only TV:
Brad Pye, Jr. is profiled; Rev. Cecil Muray (11 a.m. KSCI).

Bored to Death: Returning for its third season, this series follows noir-obsessed writer-turned-private eye (Jason Schwartzman). Ted Danson and Zach Galifianakis also star (9 p.m. HBO).

Mike & Molly: Mike (Billy Gardell) leaves his bachelor digs behind to move in with Molly (Melissa McCarthy) and her house full of women in this new episode (9:30 p.m. CBS).

Enlightened: This new dramedy series stars Laura Dern as a smart, successful corporate buyer who has a very public office meltdown, checks in to an exotic new age facility for three months, then returns to her job a newly enlightened person. Luke Wilson, Diane Ladd, Sarah Burns and director/writer Mike White also star (9:30 p.m. HBO).

Hawaii Five-0: Patty Duke guest stars in this new episode as the Alzheimer's-afflicted mother of the victim in Five-0's latest murder case. Peter Fonda also guest stars (10 p.m. CBS).

Cake Boss: Regis Philbin stops by the shop to learn how to decorate cakes in this new episode (10 p.m. TLC). A second new episode follows at 10:30.

SPECIAL

The War of 1812:
For 2 1/2 years, Americans fought against the British, Canadian colonists and native nations (9 p.m. KOCE).

MOVIES

Five:
Jennifer Aniston and Demi Moore, Alicia Keys, and directors Patty Jenkins and Penelope Spheeris helm this anthology of five moving, funny and deeply interwoven short films about women and their loved ones forging their own paths in coping with breast cancer. Jeanne Tripplehorn, Ginnifer Goodwin, Patricia Clarkson, Lyndsy Fonseca and Rosario Dawson star (9 p.m. Lifetime).

SPORTS

Baseball:
Americal League Championship (1 p.m. ESPN), National League Championship Series (5 p.m. TBS).

Football: The Chicago Bears visit the Detroit Lions (5:30 p.m. ESPN).


http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/show...e-on-fox-.html
post #72628 of 93656
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoubleDAZ View Post

Sorry, but I think greed is greed, whether it be for necessities or what you call "luxuries". There used to be a day when Bill Gates and Steve Jobs both would have agreed with me about excessive profits. In fact, both did what they did because of the greed of big business at the time, at least in part. In the beginning, their profits meant more funds for innovation and the profits were poured back into the company. However, something happened after the first billion or so and they joined the corporate crowd.

Apple do put their profits back into the company, except now they do it to buy the technolgoy of entire companies instead of pure R&D. Like Siri which was just re-announced as a new feature last week and the LiquidMetal company they bought the sole rights to last year to make their products.

It also means they have enough cash on hand to build crazy new buildings like the spaceship campus that's about to be built. I can't remember how much that costs but based on the cost of the land, it's specifications and unique materials that's got to be close to a billion.
post #72629 of 93656
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoubleDAZ View Post

Couldn't they still make millions if they cut the cost of the iPad2 in half? Just how much do these greedy people need?

They could probably still make a mint, but slashing prices in two would all but guarantee those devices will never be made in the USA. With constantly rising oversea wages (at least in China), some companies have started trickling manufacturing jobs back home. Again, I think OPEC is a much better example of rampant greed.
post #72630 of 93656
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post

Personally, I'd be willing to bet that if the economy is humming really well by that point, we'll see people willing to get back to subscription models of all kinds - and more of them, to boot. I wouldn't be surprised to see similar to current numbers with people also paying for premium online video services, in particular VOD. I see more money being laid out, not less.

People seem less opposed to paying for subscription services they may not use when they have a steady paycheck and reasonable job security.

Further, if the ISPs have anything to do with it, they'll crush the life out of most of the competition for multi-channel services to the point where people will go back out of frustration over not being able to see the shows they like. Plus, the multi-channel providers will be working ovetime to add features that are currently pulling customers away to other things as well as bundling stuff to make it cost ineffective to not subscribe.

Maybe if pay TV would show less reality shows, repeats, commercials, and paid programming all night and add more variety and cut out the non stop rate hikes customers might decide to come back.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: HDTV Programming
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › HDTV Programming › Hot Off The Press: The Latest TV News and Information