While late night television can be viewed as a way to entertain America just before they go to bed, Hollywood has a different idea. These shows are a perfect way for media conglomerates to allow for their respective stars to shill out their latest movies, television shows and musicians' albums. The conversations between the host and the guest are often predetermined before filming, and the two rarely have any knowledge about one another beyond what they're promoting.
Monday night, "Community" star and "The Soup" host Joel McHale, one of the funniest men in show business right now, appeared on "The Late Late Show." Since I've always preferred Conan O'Brien (and once he was hosting the "Tonight Show," I usually just left on Jimmy Fallon), I hadn't really given host Craig Ferguson much of a chance. However, since NBC is now dead to me, more or less, I've been checking out Ferguson more, and I'm beginning to realize what I've been missing. His interview with McHale shows that not only is he funny, but can be very genuine with his guests.
Their rapport is casual and friendly, and doesn't feel staged for the studio audience. You can tell that McHale and Ferguson have developed a certain degree of friendship off-camera, and that they really aren't trying too hard to be funny and jovial. When in the company of one another, they are naturally hilarious and laid-back. I can't remember the last time I laughed so hard. Plus, now I want a robot impersonating David Caruso, who plays the "YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH" part of "We Won't Get Fooled Again" as it takes off its glasses.
As always, Oh No They Didn't helped me see the video.
I'm beginning to see why people like Ferguson as much as they do. Last month, he decided to do a show sans audience, simply hanving an hour-long conversation with comedian Stephen Fry. As Ken Tucker of Entertainment Weekly noted, "What was new [...] was this old-fashioned hour, in which two people conversed in an enlightening, deceptively casual way. It was terrific to see two pros like this." Ferguson is not only funny, but fascinating. Part one of the show with Fry is here.
What does everyone think of McHale, Ferguson and Fry? Do you also find yourself captivated and amused by Ferguson's interviews? Do you have any other late-night highlights? Leave a comment!
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Social networks and live blogs make television personal, part 2
Yesterday, I posted part one of my story about the connection between social networks and television. Here is part two of my story.
Coletta feels that the fusion of television and Internet communities will allow for better viewer feedback on the content they are watching. “People were very passive ... we have so much more power today,” he said. He cites the recent example of “Chuck” fans creating uproar over the romantic entanglements between the main characters.
As a result of the episode plots, the show’s creators had to assure the fans that they were not going to completely jeopardize the characters’ relationships. “It’s bringing creators and fans closer together. Like, I remember with Joss Whedon, girls in class would know everything he did or said.”
However, as Miller points out, it’s not just those behind the show who can be overwhelmed by social networks and live blogging. “You need to find just the right amount of population,” she said. “If you have too many people, you have repetition, like on Twitter.”
Repetition is a major problem on social networks; in a fast-moving chat or feed, users will have the same reaction to an event. For last year’s Video Music Awards, MTV set up their own Twitter monitoring device to see Tweets about the show, and there was a major spike in Tweets chiding Kanye West for famously interrupting Taylor Swift’s acceptance speech.
Additionally, too many users can spoil the fun, as was the case for the Oscars, when the massive influx of visitors to Oh No They Didn’t caused the servers to frequently crash.
Miller also believes that difficulty may arise when attempting to merge television audiences and Internet users. “I feel like my attention is diverted from the show to my computer, the discussion can be so compelling.”
Is social networking a hindrance to peoples’ social lives, or does it help? Opinions may differ. Miller wonders if the affect of Internet discussions on a person’s life is overstated. “Are you really being social when talking on the Internet, or are you just as shut off from the world than without it? You may have real discussion, but not ‘perform’ for a group of people in a social setting,” she said.
Coletta, however, would liken the experience to social situations. “Everyone’s interested in this stuff,” he said. “You’d talk about [television] with your friend on the end of the couch the same as you do online.” He feels that because the people posting on social networks and blogs about shows, especially live ones, are just average television fans, they are relatable to users.
Citing a popular “LOST” site created by Britain’s Sky channel, Coletta explains, “They build these communities, they’re just a couple of guys sitting around. They’re probably not making money, but it’s what they like to do.”
Do you agree or disagree, or do you have other thoughts about this trend? Leave a comment!
Coletta feels that the fusion of television and Internet communities will allow for better viewer feedback on the content they are watching. “People were very passive ... we have so much more power today,” he said. He cites the recent example of “Chuck” fans creating uproar over the romantic entanglements between the main characters.
As a result of the episode plots, the show’s creators had to assure the fans that they were not going to completely jeopardize the characters’ relationships. “It’s bringing creators and fans closer together. Like, I remember with Joss Whedon, girls in class would know everything he did or said.”
However, as Miller points out, it’s not just those behind the show who can be overwhelmed by social networks and live blogging. “You need to find just the right amount of population,” she said. “If you have too many people, you have repetition, like on Twitter.”
Repetition is a major problem on social networks; in a fast-moving chat or feed, users will have the same reaction to an event. For last year’s Video Music Awards, MTV set up their own Twitter monitoring device to see Tweets about the show, and there was a major spike in Tweets chiding Kanye West for famously interrupting Taylor Swift’s acceptance speech.
Additionally, too many users can spoil the fun, as was the case for the Oscars, when the massive influx of visitors to Oh No They Didn’t caused the servers to frequently crash.
Miller also believes that difficulty may arise when attempting to merge television audiences and Internet users. “I feel like my attention is diverted from the show to my computer, the discussion can be so compelling.”
Is social networking a hindrance to peoples’ social lives, or does it help? Opinions may differ. Miller wonders if the affect of Internet discussions on a person’s life is overstated. “Are you really being social when talking on the Internet, or are you just as shut off from the world than without it? You may have real discussion, but not ‘perform’ for a group of people in a social setting,” she said.
Coletta, however, would liken the experience to social situations. “Everyone’s interested in this stuff,” he said. “You’d talk about [television] with your friend on the end of the couch the same as you do online.” He feels that because the people posting on social networks and blogs about shows, especially live ones, are just average television fans, they are relatable to users.
Citing a popular “LOST” site created by Britain’s Sky channel, Coletta explains, “They build these communities, they’re just a couple of guys sitting around. They’re probably not making money, but it’s what they like to do.”
Do you agree or disagree, or do you have other thoughts about this trend? Leave a comment!
Friday, March 26, 2010
Social networks and live blogs make television personal
The lines between television and the Internet have blurred in recent years, and with the rise of social networking and live blogging, that change is accelerated.
Social network Web sites such as Twitter and online communities such as LiveJournal’s entertainment and celebrity gossip page Oh No They Didn’t allow for strangers all over the world to connect and discuss television shows and events live, as they unfold on the screen.
Dr. Montana Miller, a popular culture professor at Bowling Green State University, says that social networks and Internet communities are gaining popularity because they can help create bonds that would not have occurred in real life.
“It offers companionship,” she said. “With communities, there’s a sense that you’re watching with friends. In chats I read, many users say ‘I’m so glad to be watching with you,’ or ‘I didn’t use to enjoy these evens until I was talking to you guys.’”
Miller’s analysis is reflected on sites like Oh No They Didn’t, which hosts discussion posts for every major award show aired on television, in which users can discuss the winners, losers and shocking moments. For the Oscars earlier this month, four discussion posts were made, with members creating over 20,000 comments on the show throughout the evening. “Entertainment Weekly” offers live blogging pages for major award shows as well, showing that major media outlets, and not just smaller Web sites and blogs, are connecting televised events with Internet content.
As Miller noted, users do express their happiness for finding the groups so they can express their feelings about television events frequently viewed by individuals at home. On a “Saturday Night Live” discussion post (another Oh No They Didn’t staple), user “eeagle” wrote, “[sic] this episode was epic and i glad i got to spend it with you guys!” User “kerfuffleboat” found that the posts are worthwhile and enjoyable for the virtual company they supply. “[Sic] I missed the last two posts here and I was actively sad about not being around for them. idk [I don’t know] if that's pathetic or if it means ~we've all bonded.~ I'll go with the latter!”
“For those who are interested in a show, you can watch it at home and not think twice,” said Dr. Chuck Coletta, a colleague of Miller’s in the popular culture department at BGSU. “With fan communities online, people who are really interested in a show, they may be the only ones in their towns who are interested. People want to connect, so they Google [a show], and people find each other.”
Coletta argues that shows such as “LOST” allow for long-term blogging projects that can allow users to develop complex theories for shows, and they can feel a bigger attachment to the show and the show’s fans. “’LOST’ is the best example, it’s intricate and fast,” he said. “TV and the computer are going to be one thing, with running comments during the show, and LOST live blogs give users all the control now.”
Miller also sees award shows as common discussion fodder, as well as reality shows. “The sites I watch discuss ‘Jon and Kate Plus 8’ and 16 and Pregnant,’ and I’m surprised so many people watch them.”
What does everyone think of social networking and television? Do you enjoy it, or do you find it distracting and uninteresting? Is it changing television, or just a passing fad? Leave a comment with your thoughts!
Part two of my story is posted here, so be sure to check it out!
Social network Web sites such as Twitter and online communities such as LiveJournal’s entertainment and celebrity gossip page Oh No They Didn’t allow for strangers all over the world to connect and discuss television shows and events live, as they unfold on the screen.
Dr. Montana Miller, a popular culture professor at Bowling Green State University, says that social networks and Internet communities are gaining popularity because they can help create bonds that would not have occurred in real life.
“It offers companionship,” she said. “With communities, there’s a sense that you’re watching with friends. In chats I read, many users say ‘I’m so glad to be watching with you,’ or ‘I didn’t use to enjoy these evens until I was talking to you guys.’”
Miller’s analysis is reflected on sites like Oh No They Didn’t, which hosts discussion posts for every major award show aired on television, in which users can discuss the winners, losers and shocking moments. For the Oscars earlier this month, four discussion posts were made, with members creating over 20,000 comments on the show throughout the evening. “Entertainment Weekly” offers live blogging pages for major award shows as well, showing that major media outlets, and not just smaller Web sites and blogs, are connecting televised events with Internet content.
As Miller noted, users do express their happiness for finding the groups so they can express their feelings about television events frequently viewed by individuals at home. On a “Saturday Night Live” discussion post (another Oh No They Didn’t staple), user “eeagle” wrote, “[sic] this episode was epic and i glad i got to spend it with you guys!” User “kerfuffleboat” found that the posts are worthwhile and enjoyable for the virtual company they supply. “[Sic] I missed the last two posts here and I was actively sad about not being around for them. idk [I don’t know] if that's pathetic or if it means ~we've all bonded.~ I'll go with the latter!”
“For those who are interested in a show, you can watch it at home and not think twice,” said Dr. Chuck Coletta, a colleague of Miller’s in the popular culture department at BGSU. “With fan communities online, people who are really interested in a show, they may be the only ones in their towns who are interested. People want to connect, so they Google [a show], and people find each other.”
Coletta argues that shows such as “LOST” allow for long-term blogging projects that can allow users to develop complex theories for shows, and they can feel a bigger attachment to the show and the show’s fans. “’LOST’ is the best example, it’s intricate and fast,” he said. “TV and the computer are going to be one thing, with running comments during the show, and LOST live blogs give users all the control now.”
Miller also sees award shows as common discussion fodder, as well as reality shows. “The sites I watch discuss ‘Jon and Kate Plus 8’ and 16 and Pregnant,’ and I’m surprised so many people watch them.”
What does everyone think of social networking and television? Do you enjoy it, or do you find it distracting and uninteresting? Is it changing television, or just a passing fad? Leave a comment with your thoughts!
Part two of my story is posted here, so be sure to check it out!
Sunday, March 21, 2010
"Breaking Bad," TV at its best
One of the best shows on television right now is back, and I couldn't be more excited.
In the past few years, the AMC channel transformed itself from being a channel for movie buffs to reminisce on classics from long ago. Now, it is also home to one of the best shows on television, "Breaking Bad."
The drama features Bryan Cranston, likely best known to my generation as the father on "Malcolm in the Middle," as Walter White a father and science teach diagnosed with terminal lung cancer. Desperate for a way to financially support his family, he begins cooking and selling methamphetamine with a former student of his, Jesse Pinkman (Aaron Paul, also seen on "Big Love"). Walt and Jesse try to make their name in the Albuquerque, N.M. drug trade, and they both deal with personal struggles. Jesse fights his drug addiction, while Walt attempts to keep this 'family business' hidden from his wife, two children and his DEA agent brother-in-law.
SPOILER ALERT: Do not read the blue text if you do not want to find out what happens on the season three premiere tonight or have not seen the season two finale.
Tonight, the fantastic show returns for its third season, and it is sure to be fascinating and intense. Walt's family will discover his secret life, and Jesse will be forced to deal with the death of his girlfriend, Jane, at the end of season two. Jane's air-traffic controller father's grief over his daughter's death caused a mid-air plane crash, and the show will reportedly explore the fallout of the crash.
AMC is more widely known for its Best Drama Emmy-winning show "Mad Men" than it is for "Breaking Bad," which is a shame, because I feel it is far superior to "Mad Men" (that's not to say "Mad Men" is bad, I just could never bring myself to have prolonged interest in it). Cranston has won consecutive Best Actor Emmys, and they are incredibly well-deserved. His performance is incredibly captivating, and you feel so invested in his life and his family, that your heart breaks for him. Paul was nominated for an Emmy last year, and I feel that he should have won. He turns a character that, on paper, would be deplorable, into a multifaceted, troubled character who will make you laugh at his glib, semi-incompetent nature one minute, and feel sadness and pity the next. Additionally, Bob Odenkirk returns as the morally questionable strip-mall lawyer Saul Goodman (slogan: Better Call Saul!), a character offering lots of comic relief.
Two of my favorite current television characters return, and for those who have hesitated to try this show out, please reconsider. Seasons one and two are available on DVD now. If you need a bit of a refresher before tonight's episode, AMCTV.com has posted this video so you can catch up.
Breaking Bad returns tonight at 10 p.m. on AMC. IMDb has a list of the upcoming encores of the show.
In the past few years, the AMC channel transformed itself from being a channel for movie buffs to reminisce on classics from long ago. Now, it is also home to one of the best shows on television, "Breaking Bad."
The drama features Bryan Cranston, likely best known to my generation as the father on "Malcolm in the Middle," as Walter White a father and science teach diagnosed with terminal lung cancer. Desperate for a way to financially support his family, he begins cooking and selling methamphetamine with a former student of his, Jesse Pinkman (Aaron Paul, also seen on "Big Love"). Walt and Jesse try to make their name in the Albuquerque, N.M. drug trade, and they both deal with personal struggles. Jesse fights his drug addiction, while Walt attempts to keep this 'family business' hidden from his wife, two children and his DEA agent brother-in-law.
SPOILER ALERT: Do not read the blue text if you do not want to find out what happens on the season three premiere tonight or have not seen the season two finale.
Tonight, the fantastic show returns for its third season, and it is sure to be fascinating and intense. Walt's family will discover his secret life, and Jesse will be forced to deal with the death of his girlfriend, Jane, at the end of season two. Jane's air-traffic controller father's grief over his daughter's death caused a mid-air plane crash, and the show will reportedly explore the fallout of the crash.
AMC is more widely known for its Best Drama Emmy-winning show "Mad Men" than it is for "Breaking Bad," which is a shame, because I feel it is far superior to "Mad Men" (that's not to say "Mad Men" is bad, I just could never bring myself to have prolonged interest in it). Cranston has won consecutive Best Actor Emmys, and they are incredibly well-deserved. His performance is incredibly captivating, and you feel so invested in his life and his family, that your heart breaks for him. Paul was nominated for an Emmy last year, and I feel that he should have won. He turns a character that, on paper, would be deplorable, into a multifaceted, troubled character who will make you laugh at his glib, semi-incompetent nature one minute, and feel sadness and pity the next. Additionally, Bob Odenkirk returns as the morally questionable strip-mall lawyer Saul Goodman (slogan: Better Call Saul!), a character offering lots of comic relief.
Two of my favorite current television characters return, and for those who have hesitated to try this show out, please reconsider. Seasons one and two are available on DVD now. If you need a bit of a refresher before tonight's episode, AMCTV.com has posted this video so you can catch up.
Breaking Bad returns tonight at 10 p.m. on AMC. IMDb has a list of the upcoming encores of the show.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Baffled by "The Bachelor"
I hate to do so, but I have to admit to watching my fair share of pointless reality shows in my life. I will not recall Christmas 2009 as a white Christmas, but rather an orange Christmas, as a result of my pathetic fascination with the mostly deplorable but oddly hilarious "Jersey Shore" cast. "The Real World: Las Vegas" was incredibly trashy, but my parents and I watched it religiously every week (yes, I sat around the television watching this show with my parents, because they could trust me knowing that I wouldn't turn out like the people on the show.), it remains my favorite season of the show that I watched (I've since given it up). I tend to be harsh on the reality genre for its poor quality and pointlessness, probably unfairly so. However, there is one show whose appeal I never understood, and that is "The Bachelor."
For eight years, ABC has broadcast 14 seasons (and five of the spin-off "Bachelorette" series) of a good-looking, and often financially gifted man's quest for love, because apparently in the real world, those two attributes wouldn't help these men find a woman, and they need the help from a national television show. All season long, the contestants are whittled down to one "winner," who on many occasions is proposed to by the bachelor. In the meantime, ridiculous sexual escapades, staged romantic dinners and awkward moments (returning contestants, bad singers, and in one "Bachelorette" season, a contestant who used his camera time to discuss his foot fetish, complete with mimed actions) fill up the 42 minutes each week.
I just cannot understand the show's continued popularity (the last season's finale drew a depressingly high 15 million viewers). The main reason I find the ongoing success of "The Bachelor" so baffling is the fact that the show often yields completely pointless outcomes. As of season 14, only one couple is married, one is currently engaged (but that is because it was the season that just ended two weeks ago. Give it time, this may end like the others.), and one couple is dating. That's less than one quarter of the couples surviving long-term. Why would you want to waste your time watching this "drama" unfold with the rose ceremonies and the shameless sexual moments when chances are, the people on screen are not compatible once the cameras are turned off and the cash stops flowing from ABC?
One other reason I have a problem with the franchise: like many other reality shows, they are just made up of actors who are looking to get their face on TV, and will appear on a show under the guise of a "reality" competition. If a person is likable, they will have a certain amount of job security. ABC is becoming notorious for its synergy between their shows, first with the "Bachelorette" spin-off, and now "Dancing With the Stars." Season 14's Jake Pavelka will be on the show starting Monday, and season 13's proposal pick and eventual reject Melissa Rycroft participated last year ("Bachelor" Jason Mesnick proposed to her, but later broke it off to marry his runner-up, Molly Malaney). I do not blame these people for looking for work, but I just cannot buy into this fake show. In fact, I feel guilty thinking about the show long enough to write this blog.
So, "Bachelor" fans, why do you watch? Am I completely missing the point of the show, or am I just an awful cynic who hates love (well, actually, I don't know if I'll debate you on that.)? Plead you case for interest in the show in the comments.
For eight years, ABC has broadcast 14 seasons (and five of the spin-off "Bachelorette" series) of a good-looking, and often financially gifted man's quest for love, because apparently in the real world, those two attributes wouldn't help these men find a woman, and they need the help from a national television show. All season long, the contestants are whittled down to one "winner," who on many occasions is proposed to by the bachelor. In the meantime, ridiculous sexual escapades, staged romantic dinners and awkward moments (returning contestants, bad singers, and in one "Bachelorette" season, a contestant who used his camera time to discuss his foot fetish, complete with mimed actions) fill up the 42 minutes each week.
I just cannot understand the show's continued popularity (the last season's finale drew a depressingly high 15 million viewers). The main reason I find the ongoing success of "The Bachelor" so baffling is the fact that the show often yields completely pointless outcomes. As of season 14, only one couple is married, one is currently engaged (but that is because it was the season that just ended two weeks ago. Give it time, this may end like the others.), and one couple is dating. That's less than one quarter of the couples surviving long-term. Why would you want to waste your time watching this "drama" unfold with the rose ceremonies and the shameless sexual moments when chances are, the people on screen are not compatible once the cameras are turned off and the cash stops flowing from ABC?
One other reason I have a problem with the franchise: like many other reality shows, they are just made up of actors who are looking to get their face on TV, and will appear on a show under the guise of a "reality" competition. If a person is likable, they will have a certain amount of job security. ABC is becoming notorious for its synergy between their shows, first with the "Bachelorette" spin-off, and now "Dancing With the Stars." Season 14's Jake Pavelka will be on the show starting Monday, and season 13's proposal pick and eventual reject Melissa Rycroft participated last year ("Bachelor" Jason Mesnick proposed to her, but later broke it off to marry his runner-up, Molly Malaney). I do not blame these people for looking for work, but I just cannot buy into this fake show. In fact, I feel guilty thinking about the show long enough to write this blog.
So, "Bachelor" fans, why do you watch? Am I completely missing the point of the show, or am I just an awful cynic who hates love (well, actually, I don't know if I'll debate you on that.)? Plead you case for interest in the show in the comments.
Friday, March 12, 2010
Maybe by the year 3000, we can all see Conan O'Brien
I apologize if this entry sounds whiny, because, frankly, I'm not in the best of moods. Once again, someone (in this case, formerly) associated with NBC has broken my heart. And this one really stings.
Rumors began swirling a couple of weeks ago that Conan O'Brien was going to be using his time in unemployment to go on the road for a cross-country tour. Well, that rumor was confirmed today. Tour dates for O'Brien's "Legally Prohibited From Being Funny on Television Tour" were not only announced today, but, unfairly, the tickets also went on sale at the same exact time dates were announced. I woke up today, excited about the prospects of buying tickets in the near future, only to go on Ticketmaster to find that any dates I could potentially attend were sold out already. This is because the lucky people who happened to have Internet and credit card access at 10 a.m. this morning got the first and only opportunities for tickets.
So, this has been my feeling all day (image is via TinyPic, although I'm 99 percent positive someone from ONTD made it):
It is not right that those behind this tour did not give fans advanced warning about tickets going on sale, and sprung the sale upon people at the last minute, leaving people to scramble to attempt to get any tickets. Additionally, I have a problem with the dates themselves. As an Ohioan, I'm upset that the two Chicago dates are essentially representing all of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan and Ohio. Plus, with the monumental demand for tickets, playing venues that seat less than 5,000 people (such as the Chicago Theatre) just does not allow for the massive amount of O'Brien's fans to see this tour. His main demographic has traditionally been college students, and I feel that it would have been more suitable for O'Brien to play on college campuses and sell more tickets for cheaper prices, so that more students could afford them. The cheapest tickets for the Chicago shows were $39.50, but on eBay, they are currently going for hundreds of dollars.
Reading the tag line for the shows, "A night of music, comedy, hugging, and the occasional awkward silence" just makes me all the sadder to be missing it, because that sounds like heaven. I would love to hear O'Brien perform with his guitar, and I'm very jealous of the lucky souls who will get to see him. I just hope that for the people who were not lucky enough to secure a ticket, there will be other opportunities to see the show (a DVD release would be fantastic).
Were you a lucky person who bought a ticket, or were you left feeling like Pierre Bernard in his Recliner of Rage, ranting like I am about not getting a seat? Let me know, and we can wallow in our sadness together.
Also, on a side note, I do have to say that NBC is doing one thing right. They are allowing Brian Williams to make hilarious appearances on numerous television shows. Thank you, NBC. Also, one more kudos to NBC and "Saturday Night Live" for confirming that Betty White will host the show on May 8.
Rumors began swirling a couple of weeks ago that Conan O'Brien was going to be using his time in unemployment to go on the road for a cross-country tour. Well, that rumor was confirmed today. Tour dates for O'Brien's "Legally Prohibited From Being Funny on Television Tour" were not only announced today, but, unfairly, the tickets also went on sale at the same exact time dates were announced. I woke up today, excited about the prospects of buying tickets in the near future, only to go on Ticketmaster to find that any dates I could potentially attend were sold out already. This is because the lucky people who happened to have Internet and credit card access at 10 a.m. this morning got the first and only opportunities for tickets.
So, this has been my feeling all day (image is via TinyPic, although I'm 99 percent positive someone from ONTD made it):
It is not right that those behind this tour did not give fans advanced warning about tickets going on sale, and sprung the sale upon people at the last minute, leaving people to scramble to attempt to get any tickets. Additionally, I have a problem with the dates themselves. As an Ohioan, I'm upset that the two Chicago dates are essentially representing all of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan and Ohio. Plus, with the monumental demand for tickets, playing venues that seat less than 5,000 people (such as the Chicago Theatre) just does not allow for the massive amount of O'Brien's fans to see this tour. His main demographic has traditionally been college students, and I feel that it would have been more suitable for O'Brien to play on college campuses and sell more tickets for cheaper prices, so that more students could afford them. The cheapest tickets for the Chicago shows were $39.50, but on eBay, they are currently going for hundreds of dollars.
Reading the tag line for the shows, "A night of music, comedy, hugging, and the occasional awkward silence" just makes me all the sadder to be missing it, because that sounds like heaven. I would love to hear O'Brien perform with his guitar, and I'm very jealous of the lucky souls who will get to see him. I just hope that for the people who were not lucky enough to secure a ticket, there will be other opportunities to see the show (a DVD release would be fantastic).
Were you a lucky person who bought a ticket, or were you left feeling like Pierre Bernard in his Recliner of Rage, ranting like I am about not getting a seat? Let me know, and we can wallow in our sadness together.
Also, on a side note, I do have to say that NBC is doing one thing right. They are allowing Brian Williams to make hilarious appearances on numerous television shows. Thank you, NBC. Also, one more kudos to NBC and "Saturday Night Live" for confirming that Betty White will host the show on May 8.
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Chuck Versus the Romantic Cliches
While I've been disappointed by a lot of the shows I watch regularly (Why, "Big Love," why are you so bad now? "The Office," why are you so slapstick and why have you turned Dwight into an unrealistic character?), there is one show that, in its current run, is not disappointing me (I would include "Dexter" in that category for its amazing season four, but that's not currently on the air.). I'm so glad that NBC listened to the fans and renewed "Chuck" for a third season, because the show has been consistently good this season. However, last night's episode, Chuck Versus The Beard, was really fantastic.
SPOILER ALERT: Do not read any further if you are not caught up with this season.
Due to an infiltration of enemy spies who discovered the Buy More's break room entrance to Castle, Morgan inadvertently became caught up in Chuck's spy life, and Chuck had to tell him the truth about his double life as a spy. Now, Morgan joins Captain Awesome in having the burden of knowing Chuck's secret, and Chuck now has another compromised person who could be inadvertently placed in danger yet again (Awesome has been involved in missions throughout this season). It was an action packed, compelling and game-changing episode, and it's exactly why I love the show. Also, JEFFSTER! was back. All was well with the world.
So, why is "Chuck" so good? Is it realistic? Of course not. But it perfectly toes the link of silly and suspenseful, and it's a joy to watch each week. However, I can point to one reason why last night's episode was so good: there was a lack of romantic and sexual tension between the characters. A major theme of the show is Chuck's love for his handler, Sarah, and the constant will they-won't they-can they of their relationship has gotten a little stale. Brandon Routh's guest role as Shaw, an agent who has fallen for Sarah, has created a lot of conflict for Chuck that has been addressed all season, except for this episode. Now, as I've said, this whole season has been great, but I really think the show is better without the constant concentration on the personal relationships of the characters. It can be fun and dramatic without turning into a soap opera.
I'm not surprised romantic tensions are so key on "Chuck." After all, the show was created by Josh Schwartz, who created "The O.C." which was one of the pinnacles of romance on television in the last decade. As an action show, Schwartz and everyone else involved in the show probably wanted to attract a female audience similar to those who watched "The O.C." and knew romance was one of the ways to do so. I won't lie, I loved "The O.C." and I am rooting for Chuck and Sarah to get together at some point, but as a female, I'm not watching "Chuck" for the love triangles. I'm watching for the fun, and I hope the positive reaction to this episode (TWoP and The A.V. Club loved it, among others) will convince those behind the show to stick with what works. The romantic subplots aren't always bad, but the show really shines when they are kept to a minimum.
Do you agree or disagree? Do you have any other thoughts about "Chuck" or romantic plots on television in general? Feel free to leave a comment.
SPOILER ALERT: Do not read any further if you are not caught up with this season.
Due to an infiltration of enemy spies who discovered the Buy More's break room entrance to Castle, Morgan inadvertently became caught up in Chuck's spy life, and Chuck had to tell him the truth about his double life as a spy. Now, Morgan joins Captain Awesome in having the burden of knowing Chuck's secret, and Chuck now has another compromised person who could be inadvertently placed in danger yet again (Awesome has been involved in missions throughout this season). It was an action packed, compelling and game-changing episode, and it's exactly why I love the show. Also, JEFFSTER! was back. All was well with the world.
So, why is "Chuck" so good? Is it realistic? Of course not. But it perfectly toes the link of silly and suspenseful, and it's a joy to watch each week. However, I can point to one reason why last night's episode was so good: there was a lack of romantic and sexual tension between the characters. A major theme of the show is Chuck's love for his handler, Sarah, and the constant will they-won't they-can they of their relationship has gotten a little stale. Brandon Routh's guest role as Shaw, an agent who has fallen for Sarah, has created a lot of conflict for Chuck that has been addressed all season, except for this episode. Now, as I've said, this whole season has been great, but I really think the show is better without the constant concentration on the personal relationships of the characters. It can be fun and dramatic without turning into a soap opera.
I'm not surprised romantic tensions are so key on "Chuck." After all, the show was created by Josh Schwartz, who created "The O.C." which was one of the pinnacles of romance on television in the last decade. As an action show, Schwartz and everyone else involved in the show probably wanted to attract a female audience similar to those who watched "The O.C." and knew romance was one of the ways to do so. I won't lie, I loved "The O.C." and I am rooting for Chuck and Sarah to get together at some point, but as a female, I'm not watching "Chuck" for the love triangles. I'm watching for the fun, and I hope the positive reaction to this episode (TWoP and The A.V. Club loved it, among others) will convince those behind the show to stick with what works. The romantic subplots aren't always bad, but the show really shines when they are kept to a minimum.
Do you agree or disagree? Do you have any other thoughts about "Chuck" or romantic plots on television in general? Feel free to leave a comment.
Friday, March 5, 2010
Dead in the water: shows that jumped the shark
It’s a common crisis for all writers: the creative slump. It’s the moment in which you have to reach for the extreme in order to fulfill your writing obligations, and the results are often unbearable. In television, this creative failure is known as “Jumping the Shark” (originating from the “Happy Days” episode in which Fonzie, literally, jumps over a shark, thus beginning the show’s demise). It’s happened to many shows in the past, and it will surely happen to many in the future. These are some of the shows that suffered some of the biggest creative slumps in recent years.
“Big Love:” This was a unique look at a polygamist family living in secrecy, trying to balance public life and complicated family lives (Bill Paxton and Chloe Sevigny’s characters lived on a polygamist compound for some time, and that compound is a major plot point). Now it’s a show that crams too many pointless and unnecessary plotlines into short seasons. The relationship between sister wives Sevigny, Jeanne Tripplehorn and Ginnifer Goodwin are is only remaining strength of the show.
“Glee:” I was attracted to “Glee” because I used to be a big fan of creator Ryan Murphy’s other show, “Nip/Tuck” (we’ll get to them in a moment) and it was set in nearby Lima, Ohio (I expected more Ohio-related jokes than the show has delivered). I’m not a musical fan, but I watched the pilot that aired in May, and loved it. I was eagerly anticipating the show’s fall 2009 premiere, but it did not live up to its hype. Jane Lynch is fantastic, but for me, even her character isn’t enough to keep me sitting through ridiculous plot lines that often go nowhere. I know it’s supposed to be a cheesy, fun show, but some of the musical numbers (“Gold Digger,” mainly) are just cringe-worthy.
“Weeds:” The show started off quite well, with hilarious characters and engrossing plot lines. You rooted for Mary-Louise Parker’s pot-dealing widow to succeed, and her relationships with her suppliers and fellow suburbanites were fun to watch. After a while, the shtick got old, characters came and went, and it became difficult to root for Parker’s character after a while, since she always manages to get away from danger every single time (usually by using sex to get herself out of these situations), and acts completely selfishly.
“Two and a Half Men:” It is the epitome of everything that is wrong with television today (bland, repetitive humor that uses an excessive amount of crudeness and insults the intelligence of the viewer. I’m not a prude, but if you’re going to be “raunchy,” be funny as well.), and it angers me to see that it is the number one comedy on television. Plus, it stars Charlie Sheen, whom I despise, and Jon Cryer stole Jack McBrayer’s Emmy last year. I’ve hated it since the beginning of its run, but I think I have a reason to say that it “became” stupid. The other day, I was having a conversation with my grandmother, who is in the prime audience demographic for this show, and she said she could no longer stomach the show’s repetitive and crude humor. She made a wise decision and quit watching, and I hope more people emulate her.
“Entourage:” Like “Weeds,” this show’s plots are incredibly repetitive, and go nowhere. Vince is in a new movie. This means his clingy friends will score with women way out of their league for the umpteenth time this season, fantastic. Wow, there’s another party at a rich guest star’s mansion, I haven’t seen that yet, at least I haven’t seen it in this episode! All of the show’s seasons began to run together in my mind, and while Jeremy Piven’s Ari Gold is an amusing character, there can be too much of a good thing, and even he became unbearable.
“Nip/Tuck:” Like the month we are in, this show came in like a lion, and out like a lamb. Controversial, ridiculous and sexually graphic, “Nip/Tuck” managed to turn the unrealistic trials and tribulations of two Miami (later Los Angeles-based) plastic surgeons in the bedroom and operating room into addictive television. Once the show introduced the ridiculous “Carver” arc of season three, this show crossed the line from being enjoyably trashy and campy into an eye-roll inducing wreck. The show just ended Wednesday night, and I have no desire to see how it ended. For my money, I’ll stick with Ryan Murphy’s “Popular” instead of this or “Glee.”
“Veronica Mars:” This is one of my favorite shows. The first season of the show, which focuses on Kristen Bell’s titular heroine looking to solve the murder of her best friend, was one of the best televisions seasons of the last decade. Season two wasn’t as strong as season one, but it’s the show’s final season that lost me. “Dawson’s Creek” lost a lot of creative gusto when it moved the characters to college, and “Veronica Mars” made the same mistake in season three. The “mysteries of the week” Veronica solved weren’t as captivating, and the half-season long arcs weren’t compelling either. Granted, I will place blame on the CW network, which clearly made creator Rob Thomas change the show to fit a broader, newer audience when the CW formed (it aired on UPN until the UPN-WB merger). However, it’s still a creative mess, no matter who gets the blame.
“South Park:” I miss episodes like the one I am currently watching, “the Mexican Staring Frog of Southern Sri Lanka.” Referencing Mark Twain, having Jesus Christ battle redneck hunters in the quest for television show ratings? That’s the randomness of the show that I love. I feel the show has become nearly unbearable with the incessant need to be completely topical. The earlier seasons, with the cruder humor, are much more enjoyable and effectively balance silliness and satire.
“The Osbournes:” I’m not a big reality television fan, but the first season of this show yielded some fantastically hilarious moments. Who can forget Ozzy Osbourne throwing the ham into their loud neighbors’ yard? It was outrageous, yet it felt absolutely real. However, once the show became a hit and returned for subsequent seasons, the bar had t be raised. In later seasons, the family was clearly acted in staged or scripted situations, and minus Jack Osbourne’s ecstatic “Ooh, McRib is back!” proclamation, anything past season one is terrible.
“The Office:” It breaks my heart to say this. One of my favorite television shows of all time, I have been obsessed with the show for years. It managed to carve out an identity separate from its British predecessor, and seasons two and three were brilliant. However, in subsequent seasons, it became clear that both the writers were trying to dumb down the show to appeal to a broader audience, and they were hitting creative slumps. These days, Dwight Schrute has gone from ridiculous but realistic to just being ridiculous, unrealistic and just outright annoying. Good for Pam for finding love and gaining confidence, but did she have to become so self-righteous in the process? I see why Ricky Gervais ended the British version so early, it’s better to go out on top than to break the hearts of fans week after week.
Do you agree with my choices, or do you want to defend the show’s I’ve mentioned? Have any other shows that I omitted (I watch a lot of television, but I don’t watch every show, so I may have missed some shows.) that you wish to vent about? Leave a comment!
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Hulu highlights, part two
For many students, it's almost time for spring break, which means there are numerous exams, papers and projects due before break. Therefore, we all need some television to distract us. Last week, I provided a few shows to waste your time, but if you're a procrastinator like me, you need more. Therefore, I offer part two of my "Hulu highlights" series.
"Spaced" (Channel 4 UK, 1999-2001): Before Simon Pegg and Edgar Wright brought "Shaun of the Dead" and "Hot Fuzz" to American audiences, they were a part of this absurd look at the lives of twentysomethings struggling to find their place in the world. Pegg and Jessica Stevenson star as strangers who pretend to be a couple in order to secure a London flat, and the show chronicles their lives and their friends’ antics. Filled with rapid-fire popular culture references and jokes both subtle and absurdly obvious, "Spaced" is a great look at what it’s like to live in the modern world: you’re without a purpose, but popular culture keeps you sane. Plus, on a personal note, I see a lot of Stevenson’s character’s struggles as my present and future attempts to be a writer.
"The Unusuals" (ABC, 2009): I bet ABC is regretting the cancellation of this offbeat New York City police comedy-drama last year. Its star, Jeremy Renner, wasn’t well-known when the show premiered last year. Now? He may win the Best Actor Academy Award for "The Hurt Locker" on Sunday night. Harold Perrineau and Adam Goldberg’s hilarious characters steal the show, and you’ll find yourself missing them incredibly when the ten episodes are done.
"The Larry Sanders Show" (HBO, 1992-1998): Jeremy Piven pre-hair plugs. I could probably leave that as the only reason to watch this show. Garry Shandling, George Bluth Sr. (sorry, I mean Jeffrey Tambor), Don Geiss (or, my favorite alleged bank-robber, Rip Torn), and Romy and Michele’s classmate Heather Mooney (alright, that one’s a bit obscure, I’m referring to Janeane Garofalo) star in this show-within-a-show about the ins and outs of running a late-night talk show. In light of Conan O'Brien’s drama with NBC (side note, make sure to follow Conan on Twitter!), this show proves especially poignant, and it’s a great show for people interested in the media.
Enjoy!
"Spaced" (Channel 4 UK, 1999-2001): Before Simon Pegg and Edgar Wright brought "Shaun of the Dead" and "Hot Fuzz" to American audiences, they were a part of this absurd look at the lives of twentysomethings struggling to find their place in the world. Pegg and Jessica Stevenson star as strangers who pretend to be a couple in order to secure a London flat, and the show chronicles their lives and their friends’ antics. Filled with rapid-fire popular culture references and jokes both subtle and absurdly obvious, "Spaced" is a great look at what it’s like to live in the modern world: you’re without a purpose, but popular culture keeps you sane. Plus, on a personal note, I see a lot of Stevenson’s character’s struggles as my present and future attempts to be a writer.
"The Unusuals" (ABC, 2009): I bet ABC is regretting the cancellation of this offbeat New York City police comedy-drama last year. Its star, Jeremy Renner, wasn’t well-known when the show premiered last year. Now? He may win the Best Actor Academy Award for "The Hurt Locker" on Sunday night. Harold Perrineau and Adam Goldberg’s hilarious characters steal the show, and you’ll find yourself missing them incredibly when the ten episodes are done.
"The Larry Sanders Show" (HBO, 1992-1998): Jeremy Piven pre-hair plugs. I could probably leave that as the only reason to watch this show. Garry Shandling, George Bluth Sr. (sorry, I mean Jeffrey Tambor), Don Geiss (or, my favorite alleged bank-robber, Rip Torn), and Romy and Michele’s classmate Heather Mooney (alright, that one’s a bit obscure, I’m referring to Janeane Garofalo) star in this show-within-a-show about the ins and outs of running a late-night talk show. In light of Conan O'Brien’s drama with NBC (side note, make sure to follow Conan on Twitter!), this show proves especially poignant, and it’s a great show for people interested in the media.
Enjoy!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)