Hot Off The Press: The Latest TV News and Information - Page 2488

TV Review
'Invention USA,' a chance to dream
History channel series is a fun, sympathetic look at inventions
By Tom Conroy, Media Life Magazine - December 8th, 2011

Although most reality-competition shows talk about fulfilling dreams, the vast majority of the dreamers who appear on the shows go home disappointed. To keep all this disappointment from becoming too depressing, it's important that a show have a light touch.

History's new series Invention USA, in which two experts judge the commercial prospects of various tinkerers' creations, never lets us take the stakes too seriously. Though the experts could be more charismatic and witty, the action is engaging and fun.

Premiering this Friday, Dec. 9, at 10 p.m., the series stars two men described as maverick innovators: Reichart Von Wolfshield is a successful inventor, and Garrett Lisi is a theoretical physicist who took Einstein's theory of relativity to a new level. They spend the half hour either traveling to inventors' homes or taking pitches at their L.A. workshop and lab, which they call the Barn.

Besides starring together in Invention USA, it's unclear if the two experts have any actual business or personal relationship. It also remains vague what will happen if they approve of a new pitched product. It is said that they have ties to investors. A graphic states the amount of development money that each inventor is seeking, but we don't hear in so many words that the successful applicants will get that money.

The first application is played for comedy, so much so that the whole segment feels a little false. A tough-talking man named Jim Lebus, who says that he's worked as a drag racer, a stripper and a professional gambler, has invented a nonlethal incendiary weapon using paintballs that is intended to scare away large animals. We read that he has spent $74 developing the invention and is looking for an investment of $100,000.

When Reichart says that he likes to hear how the inventions were inspired, Jim says that he got the idea after being attacked by a mysterious eight-foot-tall creature in the woods. They proceed to test the device by shooting the paintballs at a target designed to look like a sasquatch.

Jim questions Reichart and Garrett's opinion, saying he doubts that they know the dangerous things one could encounter in the wild, like a bear or Jim's ex-wife. By now, most viewers will suspect that Jim's chief motivation to apply to the show was to appear on TV.

Back at the Barn, Reichart and Garrett meet with a series of applicants, whose products include a no-bounce sports bra and the Gotta Go personal-care device, designed to help people who don't have time to take bathroom breaks.

A man named Lou Martinez, who they say is a friend of theirs, shows up with a glove that's also a cellphone. Although Reichart and Garrett treat Lou skeptically, when they test the product on a street corner in Hollywood, the response is surprisingly good.

In order to avoid what Garrett calls response bias the possibility that the test group is just saying what they think the testers want to hear Reichart tells them that he and Garrett have a bet on whether the product is any good.

In this segment, both the invention and the testing seem reality-based and are consequently more involving. Rather touchingly, Lou says that he would like to be known for creating something that his kids could be proud of.

The second episode provided for review, which will air on Friday at 10:30, focuses on two more serious inventors. One, a postal worker named Chris Badynee, has created a cheap upright bass with a cardboard box for a body. The second, a retired Bostonian named Herb Leoffler, has invented a harness that will allow people to rappel out of burning buildings.

Both men talk about how they're driven by more than the desire for riches, with Leoffler saying that he began working on his harness after 9/11. When Reichart and Garrett turn one of them down, it's a little sad.

One reason we root for the applicants is that Reichart and Garrett are comparatively bland. Their personalities fail to pop onscreen. Even though they had plenty of time to prepare puns based on whatever invention they're considering, their jokes generally fall flat.

But they seem to understand what drives the dreamers who come to them, and their sympathetic treatment is a welcome break from the usual mean-spiritedness of reality TV. Making intelligent and reasonable comments, they let the applicants down easy.

The opening narration says that the hosts' approval could change an inventor's life and just might change the world. The show actually seems unlikely to change much of anything, but it could make a Friday night pass more pleasantly.

http://www.medialifemagazine.com/art...e-to-dream.asp

TV Notes
Uma Thurman Lands Five-Episode Arc on NBC's 'Smash'
By Philiana Ng, The Hollywood Reporter's 'Live Feed' Blog - December 8th, 2011

Uma Thurman has been recruited for a major arc on NBC's midseason musical drama Smash.

The Oscar-nominated actress will guest star in five episodes of the series, playing a character who is described as a "famous and somewhat difficult movie star who flirts with the idea of starring in Marilyn," the musical about Marilyn Monroe.

Thurman, best known for toplining Kill Bill and Pulp Fiction, has recently starred in The Producers, My Super Ex-Girlfriend, My Zinc Bed and Motherhood, and will appear in the upcoming Eloise in Paris. Thurman won a Golden Globe for appearing in 2002's television movie Hysterical Blindness.

Smash follows the procress of creating a Broadway musical based on the life of Monroe, written by successful songwriting duo Tom (Christian Borle) and Julia (Debra Messing), who is in the process of adopting a child with husband Frank (Brian d'Arcy James). Young Midwesterner Karen (Katharine McPhee) and theater vet Ivy (Megan Hilty) soon find themselves vying for the starring role. Anjelica Huston, Jack Davenport, Jaime Cepero and Raza Jaffrey co-star.

The series came from an idea originated from Steven Spielberg. The pilot was written by Theresa Rebeck. David Marshall Grant, Craig Zadan and Neil Meron and Darryl Frank and Justin Falvey serve as executive producers. Marc Shaiman and Scott Wittman, who serve as executive producers as well, pen the original songs. The pilot was directed by Michael Mayer.

Smash is scheduled to debut following The Voice on Monday, Feb. 6 at 10 p.m.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/liv...ash-nbc-271558

TV Notes
From Cop to Serial Killer, With Stops Along the Way
By Sarah Lyall, The New York Times

LONDON . Catching sight of himself in his stylish Regency wig in a costume drama several years ago, Dominic West had a distasteful revelation: He was the spitting image of one of Britain's most reviled serial killers.

My God, he thought, I look like Fred West.

American viewers can judge the likeness for themselves on Dec. 10, when Appropriate Adult, an ITV drama that shows how Fred West confessed, is shown on the Sundance Channel. For those used to hearing him speak Baltimore-ese, this actor's performance as the murderer is a revelation. The moment he opens his mouth is the moment any stray thoughts of Det. Jimmy McNulty, late of The Wire, fly out the window.

At lunch in a pub in Shepherd's Bush, West London, his own hair mercifully restored, Mr. West, 42, looked like McNulty again, though he spoke like himself London posh, as he put it, punctuating his conversation with great bursts of laughter. After five years on The Wire he has thrown himself back into acting here at home, with the occasional break. He has just returned from two weeks of paragliding in India. Still, the time he spends abroad these days is limited by the presence of his four children, aged 2 to 12. Only 11 months separate the two youngest. (I was told that breast feeding was a contraceptive.)

My life is completely over, Mr. West said. It's all about the kids. At that moment some of those kids appeared to be unable to get into the house, according to Mr. West's wife, Catherine, who had materialized at the other end of his cellphone.

Oh shoot, oh damn, he said to her. Complicated logistical negotiations ensued. He hung up. I took the nanny's key.

Appropriate Adult shows Fred West (no relation to the actor) being questioned by the police along with a social worker, Janet Leach (Emily Watson), an appropriate adult whose job was to help vulnerable suspects, as the poorly educated West was judged to be, in official interviews. Mrs. Leach became his confidante and was credited with getting him to confess many details of his crimes, which lasted from 1967 to 1987 and sometimes included his wife: the rape, sexual torture and murder of at least 11 women and young girls.

The movie caused controversy in Britain, where the memory of Fred West's crimes is still fresh in people's minds, and some argued that it should not have been made. But the reviews were full of praise for Dominic West's performance and for the subtlety and deftness of his scenes with Ms. Watson, playing a woman who was emotionally co-opted and ultimately compromised by Fred West.

Mr. West's crab appetizer arrived, and he rhapsodized about it for a minute (It's just swimming in butter) before acknowledging its possible health repercussions. If I keel over and die, could you give the key to my kids? he said.

The director of Appropriate Adult, Julian Jarrold, said Mr. West's personability and charisma had helped secure him the part. We wanted someone who had Fred's sort of charm and attractiveness, he said. Dominic's incredibly charming when you meet him, and that's something that Fred had. Fred was unbelievably successful, for instance, at persuading people to come back to his house with him.

The actor did resemble the character, Mr. Jarrold said, but only superficially. So Mr. West had to be deglamorized with fake teeth and other adjustments. He spent hours viewing archival footage and reading transcripts of the police interviews, portions of which are used in the script.

His work ethic is very strong, belying his casual manner, Mr. Jarrold said, and Mr. West said the role was important to capture with precision. The stakes are much higher with a character like that, because so many people's lives were ruined by him, he said. You owe it to them to get it right and do it in a respectful and serious manner.

Mr. West has had a busy year. He starred in The Hour, a BBC series set in the world of London television in 1956, playing a slightly dim but definitely dishy news anchor. At the movies he had a small part in Johnny English Reborn, a spy comedy, and a large part in The Awakening, a ghost story.

This fall he played a self-destructive, hyperarticulate has-been of a professor in the title role of Simon Gray's revived 1971 comedy, Butley, in the West End and then went directly to Iago in Othello at the Sheffield Playhouse.

Othello, as it happens, was played by Clarke Peters, a k a Det. Lester Freamon in The Wire. It sounds as if the two had more fun together than perhaps was wise.

He's a teenager in an adult body, Mr. Peters said. He has boundless energy and a playfulness that you need in theater. When all that energy finally gets focused, he will get his head down into it.

Mr. West, the sixth of seventh children, was introduced to acting by his mother, who performed in amateur productions at home in Sheffield. They were well off his father had a successful business selling vandal-proof bus shelters and he was sent to Eton, where he met people like the future prime minister, David Cameron.

It was my first role, Mr. West said, and while I don't think I came in with straw coming off my head, he did de-Northernize himself enough to exchange his old accent for his current one. He also acquired the classic Etonian habit of telling extravagant anecdotes highlighting his mishaps and denigrating his accomplishments.

Learning his lines for Othello while simultaneously performing in Butley, for instance, was unrelenting hard slog and pain and misery, Mr. West said.

Why? I have an appalling memory, he said, mainly because I smoke a lot of crack.

He acted at Eton, studied English literature at Trinity College Dublin, went to drama school in London and then, aged 26, got the part of a Dublin docker in a play at the Almeida Theater in London, after which he was never really out of work.

The Wire, he said, came out of the blue, after a long spell in which he played an impressive range of parts, good and not so good: a photographer in Spice World, a Naboo palace guard in Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace, Oliver Cromwell, a heavy-metal rock star, the unmemorable boyfriends of people like Sandra Bullock and Julia Roberts.

The Wire producers wanted someone English, he said, because English actors are cheaper than American ones. They seemed to be pursuing Ray Ray, what's his name? Sorry, he said, drawing a blank. (Ray Winstone.) Anyway, Ray didn't want to move to Baltimore, so they were fairly desperate by the time my audition tape popped through their letterbox.

His American accent was so bad, he said, that his girlfriend at the time had been unable to read his lines with him on the tape without laughing.

So I just left a pause for the other lines, he said. They sent me the tape the other day. It's quite funny. I reacted to the silence. They thought: Let's get him over here. It will be hilarious.'

He loved the part and appears not to mind when people call him McNulty, which they do all the time. I grew up with American cop shows, so in a way it was a boyhood fantasy, he said.

Mr. West and Mr. Peters had fun on that set too. Mr. West traveled to New Orleans for Mardi Gras with two cast mates: Mr. Peters and Wendell Pierce, who played Det. Bunk Moreland. Some details of the trip are hazy Mr. Peters calls it the lost weekend but at one point the three were in the balcony at the House of Blues, listening to George Clinton and really rocking, Mr. Peters said, when Mr. West suddenly vanished.

When they next spotted him, he was onstage next to Mr. Clinton. He was dancing and bopping and just carrying on, Mr. Peters said. Oh, that man likes to party and dance.

Mr. West is about to start filming the new season of The Hour, which will please those who enjoy seeing him in dashing 1950s suits. I was rather hoping my character would become a bit of a hero, because I've played a lot of villains lately, he said. Another burst of laughter. But I think they've turned him into an even more unpleasant person than he was already.

It was midafternoon the interview had gone way over schedule and Mr. West went downstairs to charm some more people.

APPROPRIATE ADULT
Saturday night at 10 p.m. on Sundance Channel

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/04/ar...ref=television

What tiers and packages (without premiums) went from $43 to $83 to over $100?

So, what you're saying is, the economy is just an excuse for you. You don't like the price of entry and you're picking any cause to rally against it. In 2009, it was likely "with analog TV going away, it's greedy of them to do this".

I don't like the price of a Lexus or a BMW, either. I simply choose an alternative product, minus the name all all the gismos those vehicles include. However, they an feel free to price their product any way they choose, economy be damned. I haven't exactly seen any luxury vehicle fire sales going on, lately.

Look, pay the freight or don't pay it but don't use the economy as an excuse. Try making the "in this economy" argument with the guy running the gas station and see how far you get. Maybe the guy selling tickets at the movie theater or the nearest sports stadium will listen.

TV is optional. It's not heat, water, food or shelter. It's a business that those in it charge customers for. There are ways to view the service cheaper, but that comes with restrictions. A Honda Civic might be cheaper and better on gas, but it won't have 4 wheel drive for those New England winters and a trip to the Home Depot for plywood is going to be tricky.


I find that very hard to believe. Care to supply a billing statement that in just 5 years your bill doubled with no changes on your part?

My parents have had the same analog tier for over 30 years, that start at 60 channels in 1980 for around $30 and is now 120 channels for $50. No HD, no DVR on a tube SD TV from 1995. It would be an extra $15 to get a box and move off the analog tier, which would include the available HD counterparts of channels their package currently offers. If they upgrade their TV at some point, they may do that.


The same could be said for health club memberships and other monthly fee-based services. Most people simply never bother to add up just how much money it all works out to.

The thing is, that's how companies using that model make money: those that never use the service pay just as much as those that use it to its fullest. That's kept insurance companies and Netflix in the black for years. Time will tell whether Netflix can sustain it, being an optional service.


I'm wondering that myself.

My package with everything but the premium channels (including a $10 extra charge for HD) plus a DVR (and all its fees) is around $85. Five years go it was just over $75. Just over 10 years ago, before I had HD or a DVR, it was around $60.

Like I said in my last post even if the economy was good I would be complaining. I'm not just using the economy as an excuse.

The only thing I upgraded from 2003 to 2008 was to the HD DVR but I still had the same amount of channels and no premium channels. In 2008 Cox Cable in Georgia was charging me $83 a month for it when I canceled. I have heard there have been several pay rate hikes since.

What business have doubled their prices over the last 8 years. Not many because there is competition for most businesses and people will go some where else. With pay TV there is only the cable company, Dish, and DirecTV and one is as bad as the other. Its like picking your poison.

This is what Fredfa posted.

If you would be complaining either way, you are using the economy as an excuse. You specifically referenced a poor economy in your original posts with no qualifiers and I called you on it. You would complain either way. It was just an excuse.


In other words, you upgrade your service, then ancelled later and have no idea what the price is now.

You implied the same exact service doubled in price, then made up a number for what the price is now.


Bull.

There's more competition than there has ever been since the start of pay TV, with the option for free, over the air TV. Most areas that have cable also have the options between two satellite companies and many have a telco fiber option. Further, there are plenty of services like Hulu that show content online. Finally, if that's still too much, you can always buy or rent shows on DVD or Blu-ray later.

What causes the high prices isn't the lack of competition - it's the lack of the general consumer population leaving services for cheaper options. People too easily suck up high prices and poor service as if there's some obligation to do so. That's why pay TV prices are so similar company to company: that's what consumers are willing to pay. If more people pursued cheaper options, the price would come down.

The problem is, people want easy and if paying through the nose gets them easy, that's what they'll do.

I choose to pay because I feel I get value from the service I get. If someone else doesn't, they should cancel it and make their voice heard.

The sad truth is that there's a certain set of users here that think that anyone paying for sports is an idiot. They keep telling us this over and over again - apparently so we'll agree, cancel service, and send a clear message to ESPN that we want to get back all those sports on 'free' TV.

It's pure fantasy of course because the ship has long sailed, but it doesn't stop them from trying. Note that I'm not talking about the folks advocating for putting sports on another tier, an argument that actually has some basis in reality.

If it's the folks who don't normally watch sports, then that makes sense to want it in a separate tier.

However, I often see the same people who complain about ESPN being in a basic tier complain when games are moved from free TV to cable. The problem is, a separate tier is only going to make seeing those games more expensive. while the bill for the basic tier continues to go up because it can.

Of course the ones that get me the most are the angry ones that claim never to watch ESPN....except for Monday Night Football...or PTI...or....

I get it. There are plenty of people who could honestly get away with a package that includes around 10 channels they actually watch and could realistically pay less for it. There should be a provision for it, too.

However, the guy who's list gets upward toward 20-30 channels is likely going to pay just about the same as they are now by the time you factor in higher per channel pricing for ala-carte. People seem to forget that you aren't just paying for the wholesale price of the channel when it comes to cable. There's infrastructure, equipment, salaries and other expenses the cable company would like to pay for, too.

For 25 channels ala carte, you'd likely be paying $60/month. At that point, you may as well pay a bit more and get them all (minus the premiums).

TV Sports
Dodgers Win Bankruptcy Court's Approval to Try to Sell TV Rights Early
By Steven Church, Bloomberg.com - December 9th, 2011

The Los Angeles Dodgers won a bankruptcy judge's permission try to sell future television rights to the team's baseball games months earlier than their current contract with Fox Sports allows.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Kevin Gross in Wilmington, Delaware, yesterday overruled Fox's objection to letting the team negotiate with Fox's competitors early. The TV rights could be worth about $100 million a year, a consultant for Fox said in court.

Competition for sports programming is driving up the price companies are willing to pay for media rights, the consultant, Edwin Desser, president of Desser Sports Media Inc., said in court.

Everyone agrees that times are pretty damn good right now and we think it is time to capture it, said Bruce Bennett, an attorney for the Dodgers. He said the goal of accelerating negotiations for the TV rights is to increase the value of the team.

The team filed for bankruptcy in June with plans to sell the media rights to pay creditors and allow Frank McCourt to retain his ownership. McCourt later agreed to sell the team under a deal that ended a fight between Major League Baseball and the Dodgers.

New TV Contract

Gregory W. Werkheiser, an attorney for Fox, a unit of New York-based News Corp. (NWSA), said the company will appeal Gross's ruling. In the next few days, Fox and the Dodgers will try to agree on whether negotiations for a new TV contract can begin immediately, or must wait for an appeal.

``While we are disappointed in the judge's decision, we understand the court process and will appeal this decision to protect our contractual rights,'' Chris Bellitti, a Fox spokesman, said in an in e-mailed statement. ``Those rights are material and valuable, and the current owner accepted them as binding when he purchased the team in 2004.''

Gross said he would take a day or two to write an opinion justifying his ruling.

This advances the process of maximizing the value of the debtors' estates, the team said in statement after the ruling. The telecast rights are one of the Dodgers' primary assets and have enormous long-term value.

Time Warner Cable Inc. (TWC) is likely to bid for the rights, partly because the company won the right to show future Los Angeles Lakers' basketball games on a new regional sports network, Desser said. Desser helped the Lakers negotiate the new TV deal with Time Warner, which replaced Fox Sports.

In a bankruptcy court hearing that began yesterday, the team and Fox Sports Net West 2 LLC fought over the proposal to solicit bids for future TV rights. Fox Sports can broadcast games through the 2013 season and had an exclusive right to negotiate a new contract until Nov. 30, 2012, according to court records.

Solicit Bids

McCourt agreed to sell after the team ended its bankruptcy court fight with Major League Baseball. As part of that effort, the Dodgers needed court permission to solicit bids on a new media rights contract. The team may be worth about $1 billion, according to court records filed by the Dodgers.

The approval to open negotiations early doesn't guarantee a sale of the rights.

Under the settlement between the Dodgers and MLB, no sale of the TV rights can go forward without approval from MLB, Gross and whoever wins the bidding for the team.

The former president of Fox Sports, Robert Thompson, said in court that removing the exclusive negotiating right, and other related terms, reduces the value of Fox's current contract by $75 million. Those negotiating rights gave Fox an advantage over competitors, Thompson and Desser testified.

Damages Claim

Fox argued in court papers that early negotiating would give it the right to file a damages claim against the Dodgers that would be so big the team's other creditors wouldn't be repaid in full.

There isn't going to be a material damages claim, Bennett, the Dodgers' attorney, said in court. We are not taking on cataclysmic risk.

Under the Dodgers' TV rights proposal, Gross would decide how much, if any, money Fox is owed for early negotiations.

The early negotiating period would begin by giving Fox 45 days to extend its current contract. That period began on Nov. 30, Bennett said. Should those negotiations fail, the team would seek other offers, according to court documents.

Werkheiser asked Gross to suspend the 45-day period until the issues related to the appeal could be worked out. Gross asked Fox and the Dodgers to meet.

The case is In re Los Angeles Dodgers LLC, 11-12010, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of Delaware (Wilmington).

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-1...hts-early.html

TV Notes
Occupy Wall Street protesters shut down 'Law & Order: SVU' set depicting OWS
By Edgar Sandoval, New York Daily News - December 9th, 2011

More than 100 Occupy Wall Street demonstrators stormed the set for Law & Order: Special Victims Unit across from the Manhattan State Supreme Courthouse, shutting down production of an OWS-themed episode.

"We made it so that they could not exploit us and that's awesome," said Tammy Schapiro, 29, of Brooklyn.

The protesters arrived around midnight at Foley Square and roamed around the park inspecting tents and signs built by the production company.

"This is not us," said Drew Hornbein, 24, of Brooklyn Heights. "We are not part of corporate TV America."

Some of the set signs read "End War on Workers" "Greed No" and "War Profiteers."

About 100 police officers lined the perimeter of the production, preventing protesters from getting too close.

"It's hysterical," Hornbein said. "Two weeks ago they kicked us out of Zuccotti Park. Now they have this set trying to pretend it's us. It's odd."

After midnight, a police officer on a bullhorn announced that the film permit had been rescinded by the city, which drew cheers from the crowd.

Cops then threatened to arrest them if they did not leave the park. After a momentary standoff, police moved in and dispersed the crowd.

"This is bastardization going on. This is not the case of imitation is a form of flattery," said a man identified as Scooby 49. "This is insulting."

The production crew moved in and started dismantling the set.

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/...ticle-1.989070

TV Notes
Best tube bets this weekend
The top draws in broadcast and cable and in sports
By Louisa Ada Seltzer, Media Life Magazine - December 9th, 2011

FRIDAY

Best bet on broadcast: CBS, "Frosty the Snowman," 8 p.m. The 1969 special narrated by Jimmy Durante.

Best bet on cable: CMT, " Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders: Making the Team," 10 p.m. Season finale. The final cuts are made and the survivors make their first appearances at Cowboys Stadium.

Top sporting event: ESPN2, " College Basketball," 8 p.m. Two of last year's tournament darlings, Richmond and Virginia Commonwealth, face off.

SATURDAY

Best bet on broadcast: ABC, "Republican Presidential Candidate Debate," 9 p.m. George Stephanopoulos and Diane Sawyer moderate the latest debate from Drake University in Des Moines, Iowa.

Best bet on cable: Spike TV, " Video Game Awards 2011," 8 p.m. The ninth annual event features the first-ever Hall of Fame award, which will go to "The Legend of Zelda."

Top sporting event: CBS, "College Football," 2:30 p.m. The teams aren't always great, but the pageantry typically is at the 112th annual Army-Navy game.

SUNDAY

Best bet on broadcast: Fox, " Family Guy," 9 p.m. Babs, Lois and Peter head to Florida to find a retirement home for Carter.

Best bet on cable: A&E, " Stephen King's 'Bag of Bones,'" 9 p.m. The first half of a two-part miniseries starring Pierce Brosnan.

Top sporting event: NBC, "Sunday Night Football," 8:15 p.m. Huge NFC East matchup between the Giants and Cowboys in Dallas.

http://www.medialifemagazine.com/art...kend-dec-9.asp

TV Review
'Bag of Bones' - Sorry, Pierce: Monotony in Maine
By Verne Gay, Newsday

MINISERIES "Stephen King's Bag of Bones"

WHEN/WHERE Sunday and Monday at 9 p.m. on A&E

REASON TO WATCH Pierce Brosnan

WHAT IT'S ABOUT Mike Noonan (Brosnan) is a bestselling novelist with perfect hair, teeth and wife. Which naturally means something terrible is about to happen to him. One day while signing books, his beloved Jo (Annabeth Gish) leaves his side to go to a store across a busy street. A bus approaches . . .

Fast-forward to the funeral where Mike reveals to his Sammy Glick-ish agent, Marty (Jason Priestley), that his wife was pregnant. Mike is certain he wasn't the father and so buries his beloved suspecting her of infidelity. Meanwhile, there is a dark and gloomy Maine lake in this story -- Dark Score Lake. A curse hangs over the dreary place like a rank fog.

In his grief, Mike heads up to the house he and Jo owned nearby, only to find Jo's spirit there in a highly communicative mood along with another ghost, Sara Tidwell (Anika Noni Rose). Mike also gets enmeshed in a strange custody fight that has enveloped his new pal Mattie Devore (Melissa George) and her daughter.

MY SAY Sorry for all this exposition but it does point up this mini's chief failing -- a pile-on of exposition. As great an American treasure as Stephen King is, brevity has not always been a virtue. The King movie adaptations tend to work best because of the ruthless necessity of cramming an 800-page doorstop into a 90-minute film; the King minis -- this one as a perfect example -- tend to luxuriate in the steady drip-drip-drip of narrative detail. Here, for instance, we learn more about that quaint old Maine town with secrets, and its wacky denizens, and those pesky ghosts who are just trying to tell our burdened hero something.

Poor Pierce Brosnan is in every single scene, which is probably too much screen time for a character who is not -- sorry, Mike -- all that engaging. He slugs single malt, wrestles with writer's block, and wonders what his wife is trying to tell him via refrigerator magnets. And that's just Sunday night.

BOTTOM LINE Sure, there are some fun moments. Sure Brosnan looks mah-velous. He always does. But a little less plodding plot and a lot more action, please.

GRADE: C+

http://www.newsday.com/entertainment...aine-1.3373777

TV Sports
For TV networks, it's Tebow Time
As the Denver Broncos quarterback pulls down big wins,the networks pile on more coverage.
By Joe Flint, Los Angeles Times - December 9th, 2011

They say Tim Tebow can't pass. They say he over-relies on the run, and prays too much on the field. They say he'll never last in the National Football League.

But one thing the critics can't say about the strangely polarizing Denver Broncos quarterback is that he isn't good for television. In addition to being 6-1 since being named the team's starter, Tebow's winning ways have boosted ratings for the networks that are scrambling, and sometimes piling on and over each other, to broadcast the Broncos and its star quarterback.

The media obsession with Tebow reached new heights earlier this week when CBS and NBC battled it out to see which network got to carry a much-anticipated Dec. 18 matchup between the Broncos and New England Patriots. While CBS is scheduled to have the game for its Sunday afternoon lineup, NBC wanted it for its Sunday prime-time game and was pressuring the league to no avail to make CBS surrender it.

"Right now, Tebow conquers all," said NFL Network commentator Rich Eisen.

The NFL Network's coverage of the Broncos-Jets game three weeks ago was one of the most watched in the channel's history. In Denver, KCNC, which carries the majority of Broncos games, has seen its local ratings jump by 13% compared with earlier in the season when Tebow was riding the bench and the team was struggling.

Meanwhile, Fox and CBS are shifting their NFL schedules around to get Tebow in front of the biggest audience possible. Last Sunday's game between the Broncos and Minnesota Vikings on Fox was originally slated to be shown to 36% of the country, but Fox upgraded it so that it was available to almost 70%.

This Sunday, Fox has the Broncos-Bears game, which will be seen in almost half the country. And CBS has already decided to make the Broncos-Patriots game available in more than 70% of the country. (Three weeks ago, when it last aired a Broncos game, only 24% had the opportunity to see it.)

But even when Tebow isn't on the field, he is a topic of endless conversation. Sports talk shows devote hours debating whether Tebow is for real or all hype. Last Wednesday, ESPN devoted its afternoon edition of its flagship show "SportsCenter" to Tebow mania and the NFL made him the cover boy of the first edition of its new magazine.

"When people say they have Tebow fatigue, I tell them the ratings say you don't," said ESPN producer Jamie Horowitz. Indeed, "First Take" on ESPN2 has gotten its best ratings ever over the last six weeks, a streak that coincides with Tebow's rise.

In August, the odds of Tebow crashing the cultural zeitgeist seemed pretty long. A Heisman Trophy winner and first round draft pick out of the University of Florida long popular because of his stellar play and humble attitude, he had fallen to third string at the start of the season.

But after stumbling to a 1-4 start, the Broncos, whose fans had been screaming for Tebow to be given a chance, finally named the golden boy as starter. Since then, the Broncos have won five of six games.

"Half the world has jumped on the band wagon and the other half is 'this can't be happening,'" said Cris Collinsworth, an NBC Sports analyst.

It's not just Tebow's surprising success that has drawn attention but also the way he celebrates his religion. Born to American parents who were missionaries in the Philippines, Tebow rarely hesitates to trumpet his Christian faith a practice that has become a lightning rod for criticism.

Tebow and his mother appeared in an ad during last season's Super Bowl promoting Focus on the Family, the Christian ministry dedicated to providing "help and resources for couples to build healthy marriages that reflect God's design." In his autobiography "Through My Eyes," Tebow writes that his family raised him with "a joy in getting to tell people about Jesus."

"There is nothing more polarizing than a person with strong religious beliefs," noted Collinsworth, who adds that Tebow is being judged unfairly. "We're all begging for role models to pop up and here's one slapping us in the face and people are critical of him being a good guy... He's a young man living a life we should all admire."

But how long can Tebow's ratings bonanza last? That largely depends on how long Tebow can keep winning, said NBC football analyst Doug Flutie.

"The second he loses two games in a row," said Flutie, who was often criticized when he was an NFL quarterback as being too short to play the position. "It will be, 'I told you.'"

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment...,2200561.story

Dec. 8, 2011, 1:30 p.m. EST

Commentary: Netflix may be morphing into a premium cable channel

By Therese Poletti, MarketWatch

SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) Earlier this week, at a media conference in New York, the chiefs of both Netflix Inc. and Time Warner Inc. seemed to be falling all over each other with compliments, causing this inquiring mind to wonder what's going on between the two companies.

Time Warner Chief Executive Jeff Bewkes, for example, in a chat with investors at the UBS Media and Communications Conference, said, Netflix is our friend. Quite a contrast to his comments last year.

You also referred to Netflix as a little bit like the Albanian army going to take over the world,' UBS analyst Aryeh Bourkoff reminded Bewkes.

No, no, it's true, Bewkes said to Bourkoff. We're partners. We sell them programming. We just did a great deal with both Netflix and Hulu. And I think that this is the appropriate place to point out that the Albanian army did actually take over the world Alexander the Great, right?

Separately Netflix is still trying to recover from gaffes earlier this summer that caused a huge swath of consumers to cancel their service, leading to a sharp loss in market cap, was equally enamored with Time Warner. During his session at the UBS confab, CEO Reed Hastings said Time Warner's streaming service, HBO Go, was his biggest competition. HBO Go, I would say, is probably the biggest one that's really quite impressive on [the] Roku device, on an iPad, he gushed. Read more about Hastings at the UBS Conference .

Hastings could perhaps just be trying to cut some better content deals for Time Warner-owned movies and shows with his glowing remarks. But still, investors should perhaps want to note that he was dismissive of other, newer rivals, as well as his descriptions of the old DVD-by-mail Netflix, versus the future streaming Netflix.

It's also worth asking if HBO Go is really a direct competitor to Netflix. Consumers who already subscribe to Time Warner's premium channel get HBO Go for free with their service, essentially pitting Netflix against an HBO subscription, which is an addition to monthly cable service.

When asked about that, Hastings predicted HBO Go will just become HBO and the separate HBO Go brand will go away over time.

He also dismissed other potential rivals, such as Amazon.com Inc.'s Prime service, which includes some streaming movies and TV, and reports on Tuesday that Verizon Communications Inc. is going to enter the streaming video business. See Reuters's scoop on Verizon's plans to compete with Netflix.

If you want to compete with HBO and Netflix, you better commit to multiyear spending of between $1 billion and $2 billion, and then you're a competitor with us, Hastings said. At this point, none of those guys have chosen to do that.

But even at those spending levels for content, said Hastings, who is pushing Netflix to becoming the leading streaming video company, its offerings for customers who subscribe to streaming only will remain limited. He likened Netflix to a premium movie channel, with another HBO reference. It appears that the goal for the streaming version of Netflix, where the content costs are far higher, is more akin to a cable channel, instead of the huge library of movies contained in its DVD business that helped fuel the demise of DVD rental stores like Blockbuster.

We are arguably competitive with HBO, he said. We are firmly a pay TV network, but we are an Internet pay TV network with this huge advantage of the Internet DNA.

All this should have investors asking some questions. If consumers are expecting more out of a streaming video subscription from Netflix, it sounds like it will be a long time before they get the variety they get now with the company's still extant DVD-by-mail service. Some analysts are also starting to wonder if the proposed cuts at the U.S. Postal Service, which may curtail next-day delivery, could put a damper on Netflix's DVD service. That would also boost more last-minute rentals at the kiosks operated by Redbox, a division of Coinstar Inc.

The content on video will at least for the next 10 or 20 years be carved up in several different networks, some for sports, some for other movies, some for TV shows, some for balance, Hasting said in response to a question about getting more content. We've got this great paradigm, but it's different, and on DVD we had everything.

Hastings also noted that if HBO Go were part of Netflix, its offerings would be only a quarter of its content.

With all the gushing over HBO and comparisons to premium cable channels, one farfetched notion is there is a possibility Hastings may be trying to get Time Warner's Bewkes to have a look at his beleaguered company, which now has a market cap of around $3.8 billion.

But Bewkes, who has been on a cost-cutting mission and lacks a big cash reserve, is not likely to have the stomach for another hefty tech merger. Read New York Times interview with Bewkes.

It's worth asking though, if Netflix is indeed morphing into more of a premium-cable-channel type of company, how many of those exist as stand-alone entities?

Therese Poletti is a senior columnist for MarketWatch in San Francisco.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/wha...k=MW_news_stmp

HBO GO
Reviewed by Joe Lindsey

The only way HBO GO could be any better is if it let us bypass our cable and satellite providers entirely.

The best thing about HBO used to be its Original Series. Now it's the fact you can take those series on the road with you.





If you're one of the approximately 80 percent of the channel's 28 million subscribers who get the service through providers other than Time Warner Cable or Cablevision, HBO GO gives you movies, specials, and every episode of every original series the network has ever created like True Blood, Game of Thrones, and Deadwood. For TV junkies, this is like finding Avon Barksdale's stash house.

Though the app works on 3G, streaming can be jumpy. But on Wi-Fi you get crisp video, rich sound, and minimal lag or digital artifacting. Series Pass automatically adds new episodes of your favorite series to your Watchlist, and you can set parental controls for kids just as you would on your home set.

It's not great for multiple viewers, but that's a hardware issue. Even the iPad screen is too small for more than two people to watch together comfortably. Plus, the sound gets tinny without headphones, and HBO still doesn't offer video-out capability or AirPlay streaming to an AppleTV.

The biggest improvement would be for HBO to untether the app from cable and satellite subscriptions altogether and make premium networks an a la carte, direct-to-consumer proposition. As much as we love HBO GO for giving us truly great content on demand wherever there's a data connection, we love it even more for bringing us one step closer to the way TV should work.



http://www.wired.com/reviews/2011/11/hbo-go-app/

The show started out pretty funny, but quickly turned into another goofball show. I bailed on it last week.

This guy should read the Glee thread. Most people agree the show goes too far off tangent at times, isn't as fun or as funny as season 1, and has become too preachy.

The problem with that argument is WE DON'T KNOW. And, apparently, folks who use this argument don't want us to find out just what the cost would be. They'd rather keep their head in the sand than let the market determine what would happen. IMHO, a lot of channels would disappear and many shows would move to remaining channels or disappear too. I firmly believe that under ala carte cableco's could actually make more money by offering tiers with fewer channels vice the all or nothing offerings today.

But, the bigger factor to me is that MY money would be going to the channels I watch, not to ESPN for bloated player salaries, etc. For example, if CNN is on 12 hrs/day and ESPN is on 0 hrs/day, CNN gets $1/mo from me while ESPN till gets their $4.69 or whatever it is. I don't care how one couches it, that is just plain wrong. I understand how we got here, but I shouldn't have to forego all channels to request/effect change. Change the dynamics and I believe there would be more competition to try to get me to subscribe to various channels than to simply keep the overall cost below the "opt out altogether" threshhold.

And, I'm not altruistic about cableco's part in all this, tacking on unreasonable profits too. However, at the moment at least, they're hands are tied by the current anti-competitive negotiation/contract process. And, while cableco's might not be fighting the current system for reasons of their own and there is technical competition, everyone knows Pay TV is still as close to a monopoly as one can get and not be considered a "legal" monopoly. It may not do any good, but I shouldn't have to "opt out" to air my complaints. No one has to read them, just as I don't have to read their satisfaction with the status quo because they might be afraid of what they might have to pay for ESPN if the system were to change.

And for the record, I wonder who would be on which side of this debate if ESPN was the $1.00 cost and Fox News was the $4.69 cost???

Business/Nielsen Notes
Nickelodeon Deserves Much Of The Blame For Ratings Decline: Analyst
By David Lieberman, Deadline.com - December 9th, 2011

Credit Suisse's Spencer Wang says that his review of independent audience data shows that Viacom has a real problem on its hands it isn't just the victim of a Nielsen snafu, as Viacom CEO Philippe Dauman has charged. The analyst cut his ad growth forecast for Viacom's current quarter in half, to 3%, and shaved 4 cents off his earnings per share estimate, to $1.02, after he concluded that Nick has lost viewership share to the Disney Channel. Wang doesn't let Nielsen off the hook completely. He says that Nick's audience is really down vs last year by mid-to-high single digit percentages, not the mid-to-high teens that the ratings service reports. What accounts for the drop? Wang doesn't buy the thesis that Nick viewers continue to watch its shows but on Netflix, which had 140 programs from the kids' network in 2011 vs 80 last year and 28 in 2009. Most of this year's additional Nick content went to Netflix in February, but the ratings drop accelerated in October. He recognizes that the overall audience among children 11 and under is falling it's -4% in October and -4.8% in November. Still, ratings at the Disney Channel grew about 10% in both months. That means some shift in viewer share within the children's demo accounts for Nick's losses.

But this isn't just a blame game. Viacom's the loser because Nielsen ratings still determine ad rates. And based on the ratings company's data, Nick is delivering about 1.3M viewers, not the 1.6M Wang estimates it promised advertisers in upfront market sales. That's significant. A 17% drop in Nick's ratings this quarter would translate into a shortfall of about 3,000 spots, which he says is about 14.3% of its total inventory. After factoring in the higher prices the network is charging in the scatter market, Wang says Nick's ad revenues are probably down 9.3% this quarter not up 8%, as he had predicted. As for 2012, Wang says that he is giving Viacom the benefit of the doubt that an influx of new original programming on Nick witll help address ratings. Dauman told analysts this week that he's frustrated by the situation but next quarter we expect to see stronger ad sales growth because we won't have that issue with Nickelodeon's ratings.

http://www.deadline.com/2011/12/nick...cline-analyst/

THURSDAY's fast affiliate overnight prime-time ratings -and what they mean- have been posted on Analyst Marc Berman's Media INsight's Blog.

Nielsen Overnights (18-49)
'Bang' boosts CBS to Thursday night win
Sitcom averages a 4.7, lifting network to a 3.3
By Toni Fitzgerald, Media Life Magazine - December 9th, 2011

CBS outpaced the competition on broadcast last night with four of the night's five top-rated shows.

The network averaged a 3.3 adults 18-49 rating and 9 share, according to Nielsen overnights, up 0.1 from its most recent Thursday night of all originals on Nov. 18.

CBS's "The Big Bang Theory" remained the No. 1 program for the night with a 4.7 rating at 8 p.m. Lead-out "Rules of Engagement" was the evening's No. 2 program with a 3.2 rating.

CBS's "Person of Interest," jumping to its best rating since September, and lead-out "The Mentalist" tied with Fox's "The X Factor" as the night's No. 3 show with a 3.0 apiece.

Note that these numbers may adjust down, however, as Fox and CBS local stations both carried NFL last night.

Fox was second for the night at 2.8/8, NBC third at 1.9/5, ABC fourth at 1.7/5, Univision fifth at 1.4/4, Telemundo sixth at 0.6/2 and CW seventh at 0.4/1.

As a reminder, all ratings are based on live-plus-same-day DVR playback, which includes shows replayed before 3 a.m. the night before. Seven-day DVR data won't be available for several weeks. Forty-two percent of Nielsen households have DVRs.

At 8 p.m. CBS led with a 4.0 for "Bang" (4.7) and "Rules" (3.2), followed by Fox with a 3.0 for "The X Factor." ABC was third with a 1.9 for a special "Winter Wipeout," NBC fourth with a 1.6 for "Community" (1.5) and "Parks and Recreation" (1.7), Univision fifth with a 1.4 for "Una Familia con Suerte," Telemundo sixth with a 0.6 for "Una Maid en Manhattan" and CW seventh with a 0.4 for a repeat of "Vampire Diaries."

CBS was first again at 9 p.m. with a 3.0 for "Person," while Fox remained second with a 2.7 for "Bones." NBC was third with a 2.4 for "The Office" (2.9) and "Whitney" (1.9), ABC fourth with a 1.9 for "America's Funniest Home Videos," Univision fifth with a 1.7 for "La Fuerza del Destino," Telemundo sixth with a 0.5 for "Flor Salvaje" and Telemundo seventh with a 0.3 for a "Secret Circle" rerun.

At 10 p.m. CBS held onto the lead with a 3.0 for "The Mentalist," with NBC second with a 1.6 for "Grimm," getting a one-night tryout in the timeslot. It was the network's highest-rated show in the timeslot in nearly three months. ABC was third with a 1.4 for the debut of "The Great Big American Auction," Univision fourth with a 1.1 for "Noticias Univision Presenta" and Telemundo fifth with a 0.6 for "La Casa de al Lado."

CBS also finished first for the night among households with an 8.3 average overnight rating and a 13 share. Fox was second at 5.7/9, ABC third at 3.5/6, NBC fourth at 2.6/4, Univision fifth at 1.7/3, Telemundo sixth at 0.8/1 and CW seventh at 0.7/1.

http://www.medialifemagazine.com/art...-night-win.asp

I sub to HBO thru Comcast and Directv and was really looking forward to being able to watch HBO GO on the ROKU, and then after it was unveiled and everything, the only two services(the biggest overall) aren't supported. You can't watch HBO go on the ROKU thru Comcast or Directv, now WTF is the justification for cutting of the biggest pct of the customer base from using the ROKU?

http://gigaom.com/video/hbo-go-for-r...mcast-directv/

Offering things individually costs more. A few set tiers are cheaper to manage. With ala carte, not only would extra staff be required to oversee the various permissions for the viewer packages, but everyone who goes this route would need a box. Plus, it would be chaos to charge a fee based on the channel, so they need to charge a fee high enough to cover the cost of the more expensive channels someone might choose with the fee charged for the cheaper ones.

$2/channel would likely do that, plus box rental fee plus the inevitable "access fee" they would charge for the privilege of not getting all those other channels. That's why 25 channels would likely easily cost $60 a month with ala carte.

For a dozen channels or less, you might get away with $30-$35.

Anyone who thinks they would pay a buck a channel and call it a day is fooling themselves.


I'm not sure it would really work that way, though. I'll bet a channel like ESPN is going to get theirs - and some of it will be from you - even if you don't choose it individually. You may not be directly paying them, but a condition of allowing ala carte may be a much higher fee from the cable company. That means you're ala carte fees will still help pay for it - likely through that "access fee".

I'm not sure you get the victory you think you would.


The problem is, the major cable companies own blocks of channels too: TIme Warner and Comcast, in particular. They want their worthless channels to be propped up by their better properties, too (that is, if TW had any better ones). Ala Carte might very well mean the end of some of those money-makers for them.

Further, as pointed out, they sell ads on in local avail slots on all the cable channels. If viewership goes down, the ad prices drop. One 30 second ad (even in a small market) can pay the distribution fee for 100 people or more to get that channel. Multiply that by 120 minutes of insert ads per day (about 6 minutes per hour) x 30 days and that's a lot of extra revenue above and beyond the subscription fees the customer pays.

Finally, with a channel like ESPN, it's not just about fees. For those big fees, the cable companies get a lot of extra streaming, VOD and other content in the package. They might not get that without the package deal. That stuff is valuable to an increasing number of customers and makes them a lot more likely to want to keep the status quo.


If a channel asks for a certain price and gets it, who am I to tell Fox or ESPN they can't have it if I continue to subscribe? Further, who am I to tell Disney or Newscorp how they sell their product to the cable and satellite companies? It's they're product. They own it. They are free to package t any way they want.

BTW: I watch neither of those channels.

Because the Roku easily connects to your TV, and has real potential to act as a set top box, which makes people consider it more of a cable substitute. It's also a device unlikely to be taken with you, unlike a computer, phone or a tablet. Unlike those other devices that can do things without a connection to the cloud (or have cellular networks to provide the cloud), the Ruku is pretty much a brick without an internet connection.

If you're at home, they want you to watch the TV version.

Both are on the basic tier for most, if not all, cable/sat systems. The difference is ESPN is watched - you could interpret that as "valued" - by a far larger group of people than FNC based on ratings numbers. And I believe FNC's carriage rate is relatively high as well compared to other cable channels although I don't know the actual amount.

To me the price is not the issue with ala carte. It is about getting the channels that we want and pay for those. It works well in Canada it could work well in the States. Cable is in trouble now and worse shortly. If you are willing to watch shows a day late and don't care about live sports you really do not need cable. Our daughters family lives near NYC and they get a ton of over the air channels with just an inside antenna. I understand that there are ways to get all the live sports you might want. It is just some of this is not easy as click on the remote but it soon could be worth the $100 I pay month for a whole bunch of channels I never watch.

Sorry, but I don't consider this a war. My goal is simply something more fair to all parties, not necessarily cheaper. I don't mind paying for channels, I object to paying for ESPN simply because of what I believe is the direct result of Disney's modus operandi with regard to sports salaries and Pay TV costs. If it only affected ESPN and it's subscribers, I wouldn't care, but it unfairly raises costs for all of us, unlike any other channel.

And, I'm not going to argue prices. I fall back on my original statement -- "YOU DON'T KNOW". All your conclusions are based on how things work today vs looking for or at a totally different model. I firmly believe cable is heading directly toward regulated utility status and I don't think they will be happy when that happens. Just as with the internet, I think they'd be better served by embracing the technology than looking for ways to subvert it. The entire content industry needs to get it's act together and look for new ways to bring their product to consumers and let go of this dated adversarial business model.


I didn't think you did, but I specifically used CNN to avoid the ideolgy crap that would have invaded the discussion had I used FNC, even though FNC is a better example of what I'm talking about. I believe the current high cost for FNC is a direct result of what I dislike about Disney/ESPN. And, yes, I also happen to think FNC is too expensive, but they don't drive the market like Disney/ESPN does.

That is not the point and I'm quite sure you know that, but choose to ignore it.

TV Notes
CW Shifts Midseason Lineup to Boost 'Remodeled'
By Lesley Goldberg, The Hollywood Reporter 'Live Feed' Blog - December 9th, 2011

The CW is betting big on Remodeled.

The young-skewing network has delayed the midseason returns of Sarah Michelle Gellar's Ringer and 90210 to make room for two airings of the new modeling reality series Remodeled.

Featuring modeling industry veteran Paul Fisher as he attempts to create one "Network" of smaller agencies, the CW will air the show's premiere on Tuesday, Jan. 17 at 9 p.m. following the return of 90210, which has been pushed back from its original Jan. 10 return.

A rebroadcast of the Remodeled premiere will air the following night at 9 p.m., in the same slot where the network had initially planed to launch the series. A third airing of the premiere will be broadcast on Friday, Jan. 20 at 8 p.m.

The following week, the second original episode of Remodeled will air on Tuesday, Jan. 24 at 9 p.m. and be rebroadcast Wednesday, Jan. 25 at 9 p.m.

Ringer, which was to return with new episodes on Tuesday, Jan. 10 at 9 p.m., will return to its regular time slot with new episodes starting Jan. 31 with nearly all original episodes through its season finale in May.

Remodeled will air its third episode in its regularly scheduled slot on Wednesday, Feb. 1 at 9 p.m.

The broad exposure for Remodeled comes two months after the CW yanked struggling reality series H8R from its schedule following a handful of low-rated episodes.

An updated schedule of the CW's midseason premiere dates follows.

Tuesday, January 17
8-9 p.m. 90210 (original episodes return)
9-10 p.m. Remodeled (series premiere)

Wednesday, January 18
8-9 p.m. One Tree Hill
9-10 p.m. Remodeled (special encore)

Friday, January 20
8-9 p.m. Remodeled (special encore)
9-10 p.m. Supernatural

Tuesday, January 24
8-9 p.m. 90210
9-10 p.m. Remodeled (original telecast)

Wednesday, January 25
8-9 p.m. One Tree Hill
9-10 p.m. Remodeled (special encore)

Tuesday, January 31
8-9 p.m. 90210
9-10 p.m. Ringer (original episodes return)

Wednesday, February 1
8-9 p.m. One Tree Hill
9-10 p.m. Remodeled (original episode)

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/liv...p-boost-271940