Last week, I blogged about how Lady Gaga would make the VMAs great. Well, Gaga's impressive eight wins last night, including Video of the Year, did yield some highlights in the show, including her so-called "meat dress":
Sadly, the rest of the show was fairly boring. Gaga did not perform, which took away some of the mystique in the evening. Justin Bieber sounded off-key, and nearly every other performance involved Auto-Tune and lip syncing. Not to mention, they were fairly boring.
Was Taylor Swift's performance really necessary? I understand that it would have been awful for something like that to happen to her. However, I just feel as though it was completely tacky to compose and (poorly) perform such a maudlin song over something that, in the grand scheme of her career, didn't exactly hurt. I feel like a cover of Natalie Merchant's "Thank You" would have been more fitting, because Kanye West's interruption of her speech made everyone elicit an outrageous amount of sympathy for her. Then again, why fault her for believing the hype?
However, no matter whether one thought harping on the past was necessary it's difficult to argue that she didn't sound great. Which is what is sad about the VMAs and music as a whole: we complain that people lip sync and use AutoTune. But why do they do that? Because they sound like Justin Bieber and Taylor Swift. Minus the very talented and charismatic Florence and the Machine and Robyn, each performance was rather lacking.
Host Chelsea Handler wasn't give a whole lot to do, but when she was on stage, she had some good one-liners. I think Kanye West's Twitter account should have hosted the show.
Usually when it comes to late summer-early fall award shows, the Emmys are far superior to the VMAs. Last year with the travesty of Jon Cryer winning an Emmy and the overall boring nature of the presenters, the VMAs were quite entertaining. However, this year things went back to normal. MTV just can't capture the magic they used to have. The show wasn't terrible like June's Movie Awards, just boring.
It's once again time to highlight the failure of NBC.
Seth Meyers announced on his Twitter page that the Sept. 25 season premiere of Saturday Night Live would feature Amy Poehler as host and Katy Perry as the musical guest. Putting my strong dislike for Katy aside, the musical guest choice is a smart one, in the sense that "California Gurls" not only dominated the summer while SNL was off the air, but "Teenage Dream" is taking off now as well.
In terms of picking a quality host, I think SNL hit the nail on the head. Amy was one of SNL's standouts during this last decade and she is incredibly likable. Plus, I find it pretty impressive that she will be taking on such a daunting task less than two months after giving birth to son Abel.
However, due to NBC's moronic move to push her series, Parks and Recreation back to a midseason premiere, she will have virtually nothing to promote. SNL hosts should not be picked on the sole basis that they have an upcoming movie or TV show. However, it would have been a fantastic way to drum up publicity and buzz about Parks and Rec. The ratings for the show are dismal, likely because people wrote the show off after a sub-par season one. For the record, it is currently the funniest show on television; season two was hilarious.
Of course NBC did not know SNL would have Amy host, but that isn't the point. The point is that they took a now critically approved show with a low audience share and decided to push it to midseason, so that people would forget about it. Now, with Amy hosting, it's another wasted opportunity for them to promote their show.
On that note, maybe Amy could invite her husband, Will Arnett on the show (God, I hope this happens) so he could promote his new show, Running Wilde.
Also, in addition to Jane Lynch hosting on Oct. 9, fellow Emmy-winner Bryan Cranston will host the Oct. 2 episode. Given his background in comedy with Malcolm in the Middle and his hilarious interviews (such as his Daily Show clips), this should also be great.
The MTV Video Music Awards air next week, and it will be interesting to see what spontaneous (see: Kanye West last year) or orchestrated (see: Madonna/Britney/Christina kissing in 2003) controversies will take place. Like the rest of the music industry, MTV is struggling and the VMAs are awarding something that is becoming increasingly rare and irrelevant on the network and the musical climate as a whole: music videos. Unless one is a night owl or has MTV Hits, the network's digital cable, 24-hour music video station, televised music videos are a rarity.
That's why MTV needs to rely on shocking moments to get people talking about the show. They need performances to remind people why the artists MTV shoves down viewers' throats are worthy. Normally, I find myself complaining about the VMAS; they're an award show I watch purely out of habit. Yet, last year's show was actually wonderful to watch. The Kanye/Taylor Swift debacle was a true shocking moment even MTV couldn't fathom happening. The performances, from my personal favorites, Green Day to even acts I'm not normally fans of (Jay-Z and Alicia Keys, for example) were strong.
However, the key moment for me? Lady Gaga. She was absolutely ridiculous and engrossing to watch. Her performance was so anticipated by fans and haters alike, curious to see what she would come up with. She certainly delivered.
This performance was off-the-wall and outrageous, and that's what made it so perfect for the VMAs. Yet, it also proved that she had talent, and that's why it was good for the VMAs, because it proved that not everything on MTV is awful. Personally, it made me a fan of hers, just because I was in awe of how ridiculous it was, yet it didn't feel as though she was trying to force controversy (like the aforementioned kiss).
At the moment, MTV does not have her performing or even appearing at this year's show. Without her, the show will lose a major power force. She is the most nominated artist of the night and anything she does will be so analyzed by the press and the office water cooler, it can help make the VMAs seem relevant. Without her, who will the big draw be? Rihanna? Justin Bieber? They certainly have their fair share of fans and haters, but they do not posses anywhere near the same public interest or controversial matter as someone like Gaga. Even someone formerly controversial like Eminem has become more mainstream.
Looking at Gaga's tour schedule, she has a break this weekend that would coincide perfectly with a VMA appearance; I hope MTV is just holding off on announcing her appearance to build hype. Because without her, they will really be missing out this year.
On a side note, I saw Lady Gaga in concert Saturday. It was such a spectacular party atmosphere, it was impossible not to walk away feeling good afterward. Yet, it also proved that she has legitimate talent beyond her costumes and crazy nature. Even though I was in the upper section of the Palace of Auburn Hills, it was great. My photos from the event are here. I'm not a great photographer, but I still got some good shots!
I love Emmy night. Most people I come into contact with on a regular basis don't understand the fierce passion I have when it comes to Emmy nominations, wins and the broadcast itself. After last year's show was fairly terrible, I was concerned about whether I'd be impressed again, and I certainly was (yes, NBC did something right).
This year's epic opener kind of proves why I love the Emmys so.
Jon Hamm and Betty White shimmying. Perfect song choice. Joel McHale being Joel McHale (side note: I loved that the Emmys used Joel liberally throughout the show, yet never nominated Community for anything). Jimmy and Tina Fey bringing back their adorable chemistry from their Weekend Update days (but, Tina, don't try to sing, please). Lea Michele not making me gag. If that alone doesn't make the Emmys worth watching, I don't understand how you can call yourself a television fan. For God's sake, they made you laugh at Kate Gosselin without hating her. That's quite the feat.
This year really provided a lot of fantastic moments. My second favorite?
Jimmy's dead-on impression of Billie Joe Armstrong from Green Day, during his tribute to LOST. While I love TV, I'm also a very devoted Green Day fan, so I nearly fell out of my chair in a combination of laughter and giddiness. Just ask anyone at the BG News, who put up with my reactions to the awards all evening long.
I know a lot of people hate Jimmy, but I think he delivered tonight. He played to his strengths but he didn't dominate the show.
Now, to the actual winners.
I was impressed with the comedy wins. I love 30 Rock, but I can handle them losing, especially to a show like Modern Family. I've expressed my feelings about Glee here before, and I just think that they won the awards they deserved, mainly Jane Lynch. I expected vote-splitting for the three Modern Family nominees in the Outstanding Supporting Actor category, but I'm happy Eric Stonestreet took it (actually, I would have been happy with anyone but Jon Cryer). I strongly believe that in terms of consistency, cast excellence and comedic value, Modern Family is a far superior show to Glee. I have no complaints about it winning, even if it isn't 30 Rock. It's time for some new blood. As for one Modern Family complaint? I wasn't wowed by the pilot episode, which earned Christopher Lloyd and Steven Levitan an Emmy tonight. 30 Rock's Anna Howard Shaw day, written by Matt Hubbard, was a better episode.
Edie Falco won for her wonderful performance on Nurse Jackie, making her the first woman to win for both comedy and drama acting categories. I would have liked to have seen Amy Poehler (who looked amazing so soon after having her baby) win, so it would help the woefully under-viewed Parks and Recreation, but there's no denying that Edie is great. Due to my inherent bias against CBS comedies, I haven't seen the Big Bang Theory, so I don't know about how deserving Jim Parsons win was. Like with the suppporting actor category, I was just happy it wasn't Larry David, Tony Shalhoub or Matthew Morrison.
As for guest actors, I was impressed. As much as I love and adore Will Arnett, Neil Patrick Harris was great on Glee, and Betty White's win for SNL was also well-deserved. John Lithgow for Dexter was a no-brainer, too.
Now, for drama. Mad Men won once again, over Dexter's amazing season four. As I've said before, Mad Men may be a show that's well executed, but it would have been nice to see Dexter rewarded for its stellar season. Likewise, I'm frustrated Michael C. Hall lost for Outstanding Actor. Yet, since he lost to Bryan Cranston, who put forth a great body of work this year on Breaking Bad (even if the season was a little inconsistent), who has deserved his three consecutive awards.
The award that brought me the most joy, though, was seeing Aaron Paul win for Outstanding Supporting Actor for Breaking Bad. He was just astounding to watch this season. I loved hearing the insane amount of applause for him and his speech was so heartfelt. I'd say it's a three-way tie between him, Edie Falco and Eric Stonestreet for favorite speeches tonight.
(I'm ashamed to say that I'm very unfamiliar with the nominees for the dramatic actresses. However, just because I do root for the underdogs, it would have been nice to see Connie Britton take home the award. I have seen a scant few Friday Night Lights episodes, and her work impressed me.)
Lord knows I love the Daily Show and Jon Stewart, but I wish Conan O'Brien or Stephen Colbert and their respective shows could have won instead, if only so we could have actually received an acceptance speech for them. Conan's nomination intro was pretty humorous too, and it was wonderful seeing him in the audience, strike/unemployment beard still in tact.
Another highlight? Ricky Gervais, as always. It was silly for NBC to book him to host this year's Golden Globes, a show where the host does little work. This isn't meant as a dig at Jimmy, because I think he did great, but the Emmys are what Ricky is made to host. A low light, however, was seeing Jason Sudeikis bring January Jones as his date. I don't care too much about celebrities' private lives, but I just find January to be boring and basic (put on display during her awful SNL episode), especially compared to his ex-wife, the hilarious and gorgeous Kay Cannon (who was nominated tonight for 30 Rock). It's just one of those couples that baffles me.
Alright, I've rambled on long enough about the Emmys, but I just love them so. What did everyone else think were highlights and low points? Any red carpet mishaps I missed? Seriously, if there were any awful/hilarious/amazing red carpet moments, please let me know. I had to work, so I was only able to watch the show on a stream online, and it was hard enough to pay attention to them, I didn't have time to watch red carpet shows, either.
Unfortunately, I haven't had a chance to update in a while. School and the BG News are dominating my life right now. I don't have as much time as I'd like to update in depth as I'd like. And, the saddest part? I will have to miss the Emmys this Sunday. It's pathetic, really, how depressed I am about this!
In the meantime, I would like to highlight Brian Williams' appearance on the Daily Show Tuesday night. Even when talking about morose topics such as the death of Brian's father and Hurricane Katrina, BriWi-Jonny Stew moments are some of my favorite parts of television today.
Season six of Showtime's hit show Weeds premiered last night, and while it wasn't a poor episode, I couldn't help but feel like the writers just played a game of "search and replace" with the scripts of past seasons.
For those who have yet to catch up with season five, here's a bit of a recap: Nancy is pregnant with Esteban's child. A woman from Esteban's past, Pilar, comes into his life and attempts to run his political campaign as a Mexican governor. Seeing Nancy, Silas and Shane as toxic assets to Esteban's career, she attempts to have Nancy killed. Esteban attempts to have Nancy quietly deliver the baby at home (so that Nancy can be killed with no record of the birth), but Nancy and Andy go to Dr. Audra Kitson (Alanis Morissette) and deliver the baby with Andy's name on the birth certificate. Andy and Audra begin dating, and he proposes to her. However, he bails on Audra when her stalker breaks into her home and kidnaps her.
Esteban and Nancy make up and marry, but Pilar is still out for blood. At a campaign party for Esteban, she tells Nancy that Silas and Shane are unnecessary and detrimental towards Esteban's political career, and threatens to have them killed. Shortly after, Shane attacks Pilar with a croquet mallet and she falls into the nearby pool and bleeds to death.
And that's not even describing the plots of the secondary characters such as Doug and Celia (although, with Elizabeth Perkins gone, who knows if that will happen). So, there's a lot going on when "Thwack" opens.
The problem I had with the episode is that I felt as though I saw everything before. Back at the end of season two, Celia attempted to have Silas arrested for dealing pot. While there wasn't a threat on Silas' life in that case, it was the first thing that popped in my mind when Pilar threatened them. Nancy's lifestyle, both her family dynamic and business model, were being threatened. The same thing happened again; the boys were used as collateral in Nancy's life.
After Pilar is murdered, Nancy rushes home and packs up the bare essentials and abandons the house, much like the season three finale, where Nancy burns the Agrestic house down. Shane tells Silas about how he killed Pilar, and says he feels no differently about himself. She realizes she needs Andy's van to flee, and heads to his home, where Audra is tied up by her pro-life, evangelical, crossbow-yielding stalker. Gee, Andy's girlfriend is in harm's way thanks to a violent man chasing after her ... this sounds an awful lot like Zooey Deschanel's Kat being chased by Abumchuck the bounty hunter in season two/three. I just wish the plot line with Audra was as funny as Kat and Abumchuck's was.
Eventually, thanks to Nancy, the stalker is subdued, and Audra is furious with Andy. She breaks up with him and tells him that he should just leave with Nancy, which he does somewhat begrudgingly. Andy finds out about Shane, and doesn't express much shock. The episode ends with the gang leaving town, and a cliched "serial killer rear view mirror" moment with Nancy seeing Shane in the mirror.
Weeds has been one of those where it seems as though nothing and everything happen all at once, and this episode was a perfect example. It seemed slow (maybe due to the deja vu), yet it's obviously acting as the catalyst for everything that's going to happen this season. However, instead of fleeing to Mexico like in the lackluster season four, it seems as though the Botwins will not stay in more than one place for long. Hopefully that will help the show stay fresh. I just hope we still hear from everyone holding down the fort at home, too. It's a shame that Elizabeth Perkins left the show, because I will miss Celia. However, I hope the show finds a way to keep her family in the show. Because as Nancy continues to put herself and her family in danger, I'm finding it more difficult to sympathize with her.
Yet, I'm fascinated by Shane. Considering all of the things that have gone wrong in his life, I'm surprised he isn't more violent or troubled. Plus, one could argue that his killing of Pilar was in self-defense. Then again, maybe said cliche rear view image is a sign of things to come. All of this traveling could allow him to further act out, and that could be both fascinating and horrifying to see.
Did anyone else watch "Thwack?" What are your thoughts? Do you have any hopes for this season?
I was excited to learn yesterday that Glee star Jane Lynch will host the Oct. 9 episode of Saturday Night Live. It's always a treat when SNL gets hosts who are competent in the world of physical comedy, and I have a feeling that the seemingly fearless Jane will fit in quite well. She's more than proven her worth with films such as the 40 Year-Old-Virgin and Role Models, and so it'll be great to see her be someone other than Sue Sylvester for the evening.
However, even with this announcement, it still leaves the spot open for who will host the season 36 premiere episode. It's rarely the highest-rated episode of SNL, but it's still a pretty big deal, since the season premiere can often set the pace for the tone of the rest of the season. It's quite the honor to host any time, but on such a noteworthy time as the season premiere, that's something.
Unfortunately, lately, SNL has gone for a host of this episode for their notoriety rather than comedic ability. Steve Carell hosted the season 31 premiere in 2005, and he was a perfect fit. Not only was he a high-profile star at the time (the 40-Year-Old Virgin was released a month prior), but he was actually funny on the show. After that, things went downhill.
In 2006, Dane Cook hosted the season 32 premiere. I personally cannot stand Dane, but I think even fans would be hard pressed to disagree that his stand up storytelling just did not translate well onto the SNL stage. It was an awful fit, and his extreme smugness was too much to bear. I am a huge fan of the musical guest that evening, the Killers, so sitting through that show to watch them? It was painful.
Seasons 33 and 34, SNL made the same mistake of tapping sports superstars to host, with Cleveland's Public Enemy #1 in 2007, and Michael Phelps in 2008. LeBron James wasn't too terrible (the image of him from the Solid Gold sketch still makes me laugh), but he wasn't great, either. As for Michael? He was far too awkward and worthless. These episodes proved that you can't just assume people who are charismatic in one field would do well at Studio 8H.
In 2009, Transformers star Megan Fox hosted. I will give her the benefit of the doubt because the writing for the episode was lackluster. However, she did not bring anything to the table, which, as a host like Jon Hamm proves, is very possible.
SNL ends up leaving a negative impression in peoples' minds right from the season's start, and it doesn't have to be that way.
Can I put in a couple of suggestions to Lorne Michaels? Will Arnett, the husband of one of SNL's finest, Amy Poehler, will begin a new show on Fox, Running Wilde, this fall. It's a rival network, sure, but I think he could deliver. (Side note, congratulations to Will and Amy on the birth of their second child, Abel James!) I'd recommend his co-star on the show, Keri Russell, but I don't know how strong she'd be on a format like SNL (we don't want a repeat of the January Jones fiasco). Joel McHale is a network in-house talent as well, and a hosting gig would be great publicity for the ratings-challenged Community. It's always baffled me that Stephen Colbert and John Krasinski haven't hosted, so I would love if Lorne considered them.
One suggestion I find amusing is the one on Facebook, which is to have Conan O'Brien host. This will NEVER happen, but wow, it would be fantastic if it did. To be honest, it would be genius. The ad revenue for that show would be through the roof, so NBC could still profit off of him even after all of the drama. Per his contract with NBC, he could legally host a show as of Sept. 1, and SNL does not premiere until Sept. 25, so it's possible, but not probable. He was funny when he hosted in 2001, and I'm sure the writing staff would work extra hard to make his show great.
Who are some other potential knockout hosts for SNL? Looking to defend any recent hosts? Leave a comment!
It's a fantastic database listing all of media's cliches and common plot elements, and it's yet another one of the Internet's black holes. I'm currently writing this entry at 6:00 a.m., hours after I had originally planned to do so. Why? TV Tropes.
The site explains such phenomena as "The Danza," where characters are named after the actors (I say this is often due to actor stupidity or subtle reflections of real life, like Tracy Jordan/Morgan on 30 Rock, regardless of reports otherwise), like (Hold Me Closer) Tony Danza. I also enjoy the "Cluster F Bomb" page, which I don't think I need to explain. But I could go on and on.
Just take a gander at the site, and I will accept rage-filled comments for making you waste more time on the Internet. You're welcome.
In my last entry, I talked about how I couldn't bring myself to enjoy Mad Men. I know why - because I watch trash like Jersey Shore.
I hate reality TV, but Jersey Shore is just so ridiculous, I can't resist it. I wish I were more excited about the season two premiere on MTV tonight, but I'm not. Why? Because I'm afraid that it will be too scripted.
Yes, I realize that it sounds semi-insane that I'm bemoaning the potential loss of realness in an MTV show. After all, how realistic are these shows from the get-go? These eight strangers wouldn't have met and lived in their Seaside Heights home without the help of MTV, and I'm sure the cameras do influence their behavior. However, with Jersey Shore, I honestly felt as though there was little exaggeration when it came to the behavior of the cast members. I think Snooki will be Snooki whether there is a camera on hand or not. My brain hurts trying to comprehend the idea of the Situation wearing a shirt unless required by law. The way they acted in season one was really ridiculous and ridiculously real.
Back in March, I wrote about the issue that plagued one of MTV's biggest reality show hits, the Osbournes. It had an outrageous first season, and that ridiculousness is what made the show so addictive and fun to watch. Then, in the second season, the show became about the show and the fame the family got from it. It felt scripted and I got the idea that the family was acting in subsequent seasons. This is my fear for Jersey Shore.
For the beginning of this season, the cast will be living in Miami, and while I think it could make way for some interesting moments, I worry that the show will focus too much on their new fame. What was fun in season one was that the cast members seemed to act out these stereotypes in their own lives, and were just transported to New Jersey as they were - self-described guidos living the "Jersey Shore" life elsewhere. Now, I worry they truly have just become actors, and have lost touch with their real lives, and for me, that takes away a lot of the show's appeal.
I'm in Cleveland right now, and the hotel I'm in (the same one that has the unreliable satellite) does not feature MTV, so I'll either have to search it out online tomorrow night after it airs, or catch it when I go home, which is unfortunate. So, I'd love to hear everyone's comments on what they think of the season premiere tonight.
I should be excited about the return of AMC's Emmy award winning drama Mad Men tonight. I usually love shows that are critically acclaimed and develop a rabid, if small, fan base. However, I just cannot bring myself to enjoy the show.
It's not that I think Mad Men is a bad show. I see exactly why people love it so much, and I recognize that it's brilliantly executed, especially in regards to cinematography. I love most of the cast members outside of the show, and from what I've seen, they give great performances on the show.
Yet, just because one realizes a show is brilliant, that doesn't make one a fan. The aspects of Mad Men that make it great just don't hook me at all. I've tried watching season one twice; I think I've watched the pilot episode three times. I find the pace to be too slow for my tastes, even though that's probably one of the things that makes the show what it is.
I've had people call me crazy for not falling under the allure of Mad Men. Usually, people react like this:
To be honest, I don't blame them. I don't know what mental block is stopping me from enjoying the show, because I want to love it. However, in my defense, and the defense of others who can't fall in love with Mad Men or other high-quality shows, I think it's good that I can recognize a good show when I see one. It's just that what I respect and what I like can be two totally different things.
I try not to judge shows based upon first viewing. I didn't like Modern Family or 30 Rock's pilot episodes, but now I enjoy the shows. I didn't enjoy Friday Night Lights' pilot, yet I feel like I need to give that show another chance for the same reasons I listed for Mad Men (the performances are supposed to be so good). But sometimes, no matter how hard you try, the spark isn't there, and that's what happened with me and Mad Men.
With that said, I'm happy for all of the fans of the show who have been waiting a year for their Dick Whitman fix (Why do I know that is Don Draper's real name considering I don't watch the show? It shows I know too much about TV.). I just won't share in their enthusiasm.
Are there shows that just couldn't hook you, no matter how many people praised them, no matter how many Emmys they received?
