The nominations for the 63rd Primetime Emmys were released Thursday morning, so crazy television fans got up early (or stayed up late) to see them unfold.
A few stray observations:
*There were a couple underdogs that made their way in: Louis C.K., Johnny Galecki and Matt LeBlanc were nominated in the Lead Actor in a Comedy Series category. Kathy Bates was nominated for Outstanding Lead Actress in a Drama Series. Idris Elba scored two nominations (as did Tina Fey), outstanding actor in a miniseries ("Luther") and outstanding guest actor in a comedy series ("The Big C") ... yet he was never nominated for playing Stringer Bell. "Late Night With Jimmy Fallon" got nominations for Outstanding Variety Series and Writing for a Variety Series (God, I cannot wait for Stephen Colbert's reaction, since the BFFs for six months will be competing against each other). Oh, and Lady Gaga was nominated (for Variety Music Special).
*"Glee" lost its bids for lead actor and actress nominations, as did Toni Collette, and Neil Patrick Harris. "Big Love" was completely shunned in its final season. Also, I just want to remind everyone that Steve Carell has never won an Emmy. Although "the Office" is pretty lackluster now, I think it would be fitting to honor Carell for his seven years of work. Besides, the Emmys are notorious for not honoring people in the year that they should be (as Carell deserved the Emmy in 2006).
*I blame Rob Lowe submitting himself for Outstanding Lead Actor for splitting the votes between him and the truly deserving nominee, Nick Offerman. Lowe's role on the show is not that of a lead actor and his character is nowhere near as funny as Offerman's Ron Swanson, although Lowe's massive ego likely tells him otherwise. I strongly believe that if he hadn't submitted his name, any nominee voters that wanted "Parks and Recreation" to get a lead actor nomination would have had no choice but to vote for Offerman and not Lowe simply because he's a bigger name, and Offerman could have gotten a nod. Plus, no love for Chris Pratt, or any of the high-caliber writers? It's a disgrace.
*While "Community" has been a mixed bag (when it's good, it's astounding, but when it's not up to form, it's painful), Danny Pudi deserved a nomination for his equally hilarious and heartbreaking Abed. I will admit to a certain amount of bias, as Abed does remind me of a more socially awkward version of myself (although not much more awkward). The fact that the show didn't even garner one nomination is sad.
*The nomination for Laura Linney don't surprise me, but they frustrate me. A comedy doesn't always have to be laugh-out-loud to be outstanding, which is an argument that a lot of people make in support of shows like "the Big C." However, is a show really outstanding when the tone is incredibly insulting? Most of the characters, including Laura Linney's Cathy, are very unlikeable, and not in an endearing way (see "Arrested Development").
*I enjoy the way that the great pilot for "the Killing" was nominated, since, clearly, voters were not biased by seeing the rest of the show, which turned into a complete train wreck that even Outstanding Drama Actress Mireille Enos could save. This spot should have gone to "The Walking Dead."
*The good news? Even if the show is weak (as it was the last time it was on Fox, with Ryan Seacrest hosting), the Outstanding Writing for a Comedy or Variety Series category, featuring the often-hilarious videos introducing the nominees, should be back this year.
*What's up with the Emmys picking nominated females to present the awards (Melissa McCarthy was nominated), but the males are awkwardly shunned? Joshua Jackson this year, Joel McHale last year.
I could go on and on, but I've already rambled enough, my apologies ... to quote Kenneth Parcell, I just love television so much.
The full list of nominees and categories can be found here.
What do you think are the major upsets and surprises this year? Any outrageous inclusions or exclusions?
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Friday, July 8, 2011
Syndicated How I Met Your Mother episodes feature digitally-added advertisement
The video below is a Internet advertisement for season four of "the Office," describing what the Dunder Mifflin staff did in the summer of 2007.
This always made me laugh, because in a way, it broke the space-time continuum. I can't help but wonder if, when Michael took the staff to see "Knocked Up," they thought to themselves: gee, Darryl looks a lot like the club doorman, Ryan looks an awful lot like that skeevy doctor and Steve Carell looks a lot like our boss!
Well, that continuum is becoming even more useless, and advertising is become a lot more shameless. As Entertainment Weekly and Slashfilm reported, syndicated reruns of shows like "How I Met Your Mother" now have advertisements digitally superimposed in the background.
Eagle-eyed viewers saw ads for films such as "Zookeeper" and "Bad Teacher" in episodes, ads that were not in the original or DVD versions. How could they be? These HIMYM episodes originally aired years ago (and were set in the years in which they aired, based on the show's narrative structure), long before these movies were likely in development. It's a simple, if shameless way to get the word out without airing a commercial spot (which would likely be skipped when viewed on DVR ... or VCR, if you're cheap like me and still live in the '90s), but it also seems a little tacky.
As with the above example with "the Office," I find the "Bad Teacher" ads amusing. If Marshall Eriksen exists in the HIMYM world, can Jason Segel also exist? After all, Segel became famous largely for playing Marshall, which is likely how he got a role in "Bad Teacher." How can Segel become famous for playing a "real" character? I realize this is probably far too analytic of a mindless viewing of a TV rerun, but I guess that's how I deal with my annoyance at the shamelessness of this.
Do you feel like you're more likely to see a film when it's integrated into shows like this? For me, I already know I'm never going to watch "Zookeeper," whether Marshall and Barney walk by an ad for it or not. But, could it subliminally work for lesser-known media products, or ones that inspire cravings (I'll admit to getting a hankering for T.G.I. Fridays breadsticks when I see that stupid "Zookeeper" ad)? I've always been fascinated by product placement and I'm curious where others stand on it.
This always made me laugh, because in a way, it broke the space-time continuum. I can't help but wonder if, when Michael took the staff to see "Knocked Up," they thought to themselves: gee, Darryl looks a lot like the club doorman, Ryan looks an awful lot like that skeevy doctor and Steve Carell looks a lot like our boss!
Well, that continuum is becoming even more useless, and advertising is become a lot more shameless. As Entertainment Weekly and Slashfilm reported, syndicated reruns of shows like "How I Met Your Mother" now have advertisements digitally superimposed in the background.
Eagle-eyed viewers saw ads for films such as "Zookeeper" and "Bad Teacher" in episodes, ads that were not in the original or DVD versions. How could they be? These HIMYM episodes originally aired years ago (and were set in the years in which they aired, based on the show's narrative structure), long before these movies were likely in development. It's a simple, if shameless way to get the word out without airing a commercial spot (which would likely be skipped when viewed on DVR ... or VCR, if you're cheap like me and still live in the '90s), but it also seems a little tacky.
As with the above example with "the Office," I find the "Bad Teacher" ads amusing. If Marshall Eriksen exists in the HIMYM world, can Jason Segel also exist? After all, Segel became famous largely for playing Marshall, which is likely how he got a role in "Bad Teacher." How can Segel become famous for playing a "real" character? I realize this is probably far too analytic of a mindless viewing of a TV rerun, but I guess that's how I deal with my annoyance at the shamelessness of this.
Do you feel like you're more likely to see a film when it's integrated into shows like this? For me, I already know I'm never going to watch "Zookeeper," whether Marshall and Barney walk by an ad for it or not. But, could it subliminally work for lesser-known media products, or ones that inspire cravings (I'll admit to getting a hankering for T.G.I. Fridays breadsticks when I see that stupid "Zookeeper" ad)? I've always been fascinated by product placement and I'm curious where others stand on it.
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Misfits arrives on Hulu
Now, for everyone's public service announcement of the day:
The BAFTA-winning British series "Misfits" is now available for (legal, high-quality) viewing for Americans on Hulu.
I blogged about "Misfits" not once, but two times last year, and while it developed a cult following online, it was up to viewers to find their own links to the episodes (often in low-quality) on websites that hosted the videos illegally. I think this prevented a lot of American television viewers who weren't too savvy about streaming television from occasionally risky websites from discovering this show.
Now Americans can have the show at their fingertips. Currently, episodes one and two are on the site, with a new episode premiering each Monday. This is one TV series that is worth that weekly wait.
There are a few silly moments in the show, especially in the second series (which is wonderfully fascinating overall), and I imagine that some may have trouble understanding Lauren Socha's accent:
However, it's worth it. "Misfits" is a fun (albeit NSFW) ride.
Here's a preview of the series:
The show's been getting some press in the US. "Entertainment Tonight" aired a feature on the series' Hulu debut, and rumors persist that American television networks want to remake the series for an American audience, much like "Skins," which "Misfits" is often compared to. (How did that work out?) Hopefully, that will never happen.
The BAFTA-winning British series "Misfits" is now available for (legal, high-quality) viewing for Americans on Hulu.
I blogged about "Misfits" not once, but two times last year, and while it developed a cult following online, it was up to viewers to find their own links to the episodes (often in low-quality) on websites that hosted the videos illegally. I think this prevented a lot of American television viewers who weren't too savvy about streaming television from occasionally risky websites from discovering this show.
Now Americans can have the show at their fingertips. Currently, episodes one and two are on the site, with a new episode premiering each Monday. This is one TV series that is worth that weekly wait.
There are a few silly moments in the show, especially in the second series (which is wonderfully fascinating overall), and I imagine that some may have trouble understanding Lauren Socha's accent:
However, it's worth it. "Misfits" is a fun (albeit NSFW) ride.
Here's a preview of the series:
The show's been getting some press in the US. "Entertainment Tonight" aired a feature on the series' Hulu debut, and rumors persist that American television networks want to remake the series for an American audience, much like "Skins," which "Misfits" is often compared to. (How did that work out?) Hopefully, that will never happen.
Sunday, May 15, 2011
Chuck renewed for fifth and final season
"Big Love" did it, and now "Chuck" is set to follow their lead in announcing that its fifth season will be its last.
After passionate fan campaigns (much to Subway's joy), the show's managed to hang on year after year, which is impressive. Of course, a lot of its continuance likely stems from NBC's chronic failures and lack of good replacement programming, but that's another matter.
I'll admit that I haven't been following "Chuck" this season due to my work schedule, so I'm not going to pass too much judgment on season four. However, I also found myself bored with the first few episodes I did catch online, so it's not high on my television priority list. And, from what I hear from devoted fans, this season's been dull, and signs of strain are showing. It's inevitable with a show like this - there's only so many times Chuck can save Sarah (or vice versa), there's only so many back-and-forth, good-guy-or-bad-guy mysteries that can go on.
So, I'm glad the show will have its fifth season, but I'm also glad that it has an end date. This gives writers the opportunity to tie up loose ends and create and endgame for its characters. "Big Love" had the opportunity to do this, and while its final season wasn't perfect, it was a vast improvement over the previous season. Instead of loosely connected mysteries of the week that don't lead anywhere (entertaining as they may be), the writers can create a narrative like that of the engrossing season two, that leaves viewers satisfied and the show fulfilling its potential.
In other television news, if you're looking for other cancellations or renewals, TV Overmind offers guides to the current state of shows at ABC and NBC. At the network upfronts this week, we'll likely find out more about what shows are picked up at CBS and Fox.
After passionate fan campaigns (much to Subway's joy), the show's managed to hang on year after year, which is impressive. Of course, a lot of its continuance likely stems from NBC's chronic failures and lack of good replacement programming, but that's another matter.
I'll admit that I haven't been following "Chuck" this season due to my work schedule, so I'm not going to pass too much judgment on season four. However, I also found myself bored with the first few episodes I did catch online, so it's not high on my television priority list. And, from what I hear from devoted fans, this season's been dull, and signs of strain are showing. It's inevitable with a show like this - there's only so many times Chuck can save Sarah (or vice versa), there's only so many back-and-forth, good-guy-or-bad-guy mysteries that can go on.
So, I'm glad the show will have its fifth season, but I'm also glad that it has an end date. This gives writers the opportunity to tie up loose ends and create and endgame for its characters. "Big Love" had the opportunity to do this, and while its final season wasn't perfect, it was a vast improvement over the previous season. Instead of loosely connected mysteries of the week that don't lead anywhere (entertaining as they may be), the writers can create a narrative like that of the engrossing season two, that leaves viewers satisfied and the show fulfilling its potential.
In other television news, if you're looking for other cancellations or renewals, TV Overmind offers guides to the current state of shows at ABC and NBC. At the network upfronts this week, we'll likely find out more about what shows are picked up at CBS and Fox.
Friday, April 15, 2011
ABC cancels All My Children and One Life To Live, women weep
Soon, this legendary character, an icon of American television, will become part of television's past.
Yesterday, ABC announced that it canceled the legendary soap operas "All My Children" and "One Life to Live." Weak ratings and rising production costs prevented the shows from making a profit, and therefore, they decided to replace the shows with new, "View"-style lifestyle shows that will deliver better ratings at much cheaper rates. As a writer, I'm sad to see that shows with original writing (yes, the quality is debated, but it's writing nonetheless) being replaced with simplistic lifestyle shows.
Fans of the shows and soap operas as a whole are devastated by this announcement. The shows have been standards of ABC's schedules for over 40 years. However, when they premiered in 1970 and 1968, respectively, American culture was far different than it was today. The housewife was more common decades ago than it is today; as more and more women became working women, soap operas by and large went by the wayside.
Yet, even though fewer and fewer people watched the shows, many young and middle-aged women still have fond memories of the shows. Lord knows my mom and I spend many hours watching the two shows (and "General Hospital," before it got incredibly awful). I remember watching the shows in the mid 1990s, when characters like Hayley and Mateo (Kelly Ripa and husband Mark Consuelos) ruled "All My Children," along with the legendary Erica Kane (Susan Lucci). I remember getting a little emotional when Lucci's 19-year Daytime Emmy losing streak was broken in 1999. Many young women were essentially grandmothered into soaps, and it's a shame that by and large, they will not be around for future generations.
Sure, soaps were campy and outrageous - but that's how they were supposed to be. They were very self-aware, knowingly doing actor transformations mid-scene:
If soaps die, people can't keep coming back from the dead or inventing new twins. They're often silly, but they really did offer entertainment for years and years.
It just feels weird knowing that these standards of American television will no longer be on the air. Soon, the "ABC vs. CBS" soap wars will be non-existent. Soap opera magazines will be obsolete. I may not have watched the shows religiously, but it was oddly comforting knowing they were always there. My mom could (and would) update me on the show's plots - letting me know what shows were in creative slumps and upswings. I guess I always thought they could not be canceled, which was pretty naive.
Soaps have come and gone over the years. But now, they're just going, and not being replaced. It's a dying breed, and they'll be missed. Many actors and actresses' careers began on soaps like AMC and OLTL, and they've no doubt drastically changed the television landscape.
Are you going to miss AMC and OLTL? How are your mothers reacting to this news? What are some of your favorite, outrageous moments on any soaps?
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Bid farewell to Big Love
It seemed like yesterday I wrote about how Big Love was ending after its fifth season, and now, the time has come. Tonight, HBO will air the final episode of the polygamist drama. And, surprisingly, I'm excited about it - excited for the right reasons.
I'm not excited for the reason I thought I would be - putting a formerly good show out of its misery. No, I'm actually excited because this season has been fairly good. The show has gotten back to its roots (the family and its drama), and there has been plenty of family drama to keep the show going. Without spoiling too much, the usual suspects at Juniper Creek are proving to be a great threat to the Henrickson family, which is facing self-implosion due to drama from a straying Barb, an emotional Nicki and a conflicted Margene. Oh, and Bill may go to jail. And Rhonda, quite possibly one of the most abhorrent characters in television (the one you love to hate) is back, which has yielded plenty of rage and emotion from me.
Sure, there are a lot of plot lines on the show right now that will need to be tied up tonight, and this season wasn't perfect because of them. Yet, last week's episode, Exorcism, was fascinating and kept me interested. I think the show did a good job of using a self-imposed ending to return to its roots and make a strong final season.
I'm glad that I'm excited for the series finale of a show I liked - I'm glad they were able to make audiences care enough to watch the finale (unlike shows like Nip/Tuck). Amanda Seyfried and Aaron Paul are expected to return in this episode, and I'm glad we'll get to see them one more time. I'm looking forward to the prospect of something bad happening to Bill and Rhonda. As a whole, I'm looking to see if they end the show on an optimistic note (where Alby goes down, Bill avoids jail and the family stays together) or a dim one (the family splits, Bill goes to jail, people die). It could go either way this evening, and I'm interested to see what they do. As ONTD user "arrogant_sage" said perfectly, this is a "great little train wreck of a show," and I'm glad that it's going out on a fairly strong note.
HBO posted a few clips of the finale:
What are your expectations for the finale?
I'm not excited for the reason I thought I would be - putting a formerly good show out of its misery. No, I'm actually excited because this season has been fairly good. The show has gotten back to its roots (the family and its drama), and there has been plenty of family drama to keep the show going. Without spoiling too much, the usual suspects at Juniper Creek are proving to be a great threat to the Henrickson family, which is facing self-implosion due to drama from a straying Barb, an emotional Nicki and a conflicted Margene. Oh, and Bill may go to jail. And Rhonda, quite possibly one of the most abhorrent characters in television (the one you love to hate) is back, which has yielded plenty of rage and emotion from me.
Sure, there are a lot of plot lines on the show right now that will need to be tied up tonight, and this season wasn't perfect because of them. Yet, last week's episode, Exorcism, was fascinating and kept me interested. I think the show did a good job of using a self-imposed ending to return to its roots and make a strong final season.
I'm glad that I'm excited for the series finale of a show I liked - I'm glad they were able to make audiences care enough to watch the finale (unlike shows like Nip/Tuck). Amanda Seyfried and Aaron Paul are expected to return in this episode, and I'm glad we'll get to see them one more time. I'm looking forward to the prospect of something bad happening to Bill and Rhonda. As a whole, I'm looking to see if they end the show on an optimistic note (where Alby goes down, Bill avoids jail and the family stays together) or a dim one (the family splits, Bill goes to jail, people die). It could go either way this evening, and I'm interested to see what they do. As ONTD user "arrogant_sage" said perfectly, this is a "great little train wreck of a show," and I'm glad that it's going out on a fairly strong note.
HBO posted a few clips of the finale:
What are your expectations for the finale?
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Charlie Sheen's crazy quotes offer plenty of joy
I love award shows. So, you'd figure this update would relate to the Academy Awards. However, that's not true, first of all, because I was at work, and I missed most of the show. Second, from what I hear, the show was a dud, and much of the blame is placed upon co-host James Franco. I can't help but love Franco, so instead of focusing on his Oscar performance, I'll instead think about his brilliant Twitter account and photos, like this:
Anyway, the Academy Awards are not my main form of entertainment. No, my great joy this week comes from Charlie Sheen. Always a powder keg, the Franz Ferdinand moment came in January when he was sent to the hospital (and rehab) and production on his show "Two and a Half Men" was shut down due to Sheen's absence. In this last week, Sheen and "Men" creator Chuck Lorre have gotten into a war of words that turned anti-Semitic when Sheen mocked Lorre changing his name to sound less Jewish (which is rich, seeing as how "Carlos Estevez" wasn't Hollywood enough, and "Charlie Sheen" was better).
It turns out, those shocking comments were just the tip of the iceberg. In the past couple of days, Sheen has appeared on "the Today Show," "Piers Morgan Tonight," "20/20" and more, delivering mind-bogglingly scary/crazy/awesome/perfect (they're a little of all of these adjectives) phrases. To list them all would take forever, but, among the highlights:
*Frequent references to the word "winning," as well as "bi-winning: "I’m not bi-polar, I’m bi-winning. I win here and I win there."
*"I'm tired of pretending like I'm not bitchin', a total rock star from Mars, and people can't figure me out; they can't process me. I don't expect them to. You can't process me with a normal brain."
*"Clearly I have defeated this earthworm [Lorre] with my words, imagine what I would have done with my fire-breathing fists."
*Frequent references to having "tiger blood and Adonis DNA," and being a warlock.
And, my personal favorite: "I am on a drug, it's called Charlie Sheen. It's not available because if you try it you will die. Your face will melt off and your children will weep over your exploded body." That's right, everyone, Steven Spielberg and George Lucas have lied to you for 30 years, the Nazis were brought down by Sheen, not the Ark of the Covenant.
Debate continues over Sheen's mental condition - is he bipolar, having a manic episode? Is he high now, or is he now sober and crashing?
I'm not going to say that Sheen doesn't have some sort of mental anguish, but I honestly get the sense that the majority of his issues have to do with his massive ego. He's desperate to remain in the spotlight and truly believes he deserves more money for his work on "Two and a Half Men." Compared to someone like Gary Busey, a celebrity who has obvious mental issues/brain injuries, I see Sheen's meltdown as a different kind of breakdown. It's largely ego-driven.
This man has been pushing the limits for years, between the Heidi Fleiss scandal, the cocaine overdose(s), charges of domestic violence against his wives, and more. He knows he can get away with it - "Two and a Half Men" still became and remains a hit regardless of the stunts he pulls. So, he's going to pull out all the stops, all the egocentric thoughts in his head to get what he wants. This isn't a mental breakdown, it's an ego-driven one. Or, at least, that's what I'm going to tell myself so I don't feel bad about laughing endlessly at his "Sheenanigans."
If you haven't seen any of Sheen's recent interviews, here's a small clip of his "Today Show" interview.
Also worth checking out: Cats Quote Charlie Sheen and Sheen's new Twitter account.
What do you think? Are people being insensitive to a public mental breakdown, or is this just desserts for years of celebrity entitlement?
Anyway, the Academy Awards are not my main form of entertainment. No, my great joy this week comes from Charlie Sheen. Always a powder keg, the Franz Ferdinand moment came in January when he was sent to the hospital (and rehab) and production on his show "Two and a Half Men" was shut down due to Sheen's absence. In this last week, Sheen and "Men" creator Chuck Lorre have gotten into a war of words that turned anti-Semitic when Sheen mocked Lorre changing his name to sound less Jewish (which is rich, seeing as how "Carlos Estevez" wasn't Hollywood enough, and "Charlie Sheen" was better).
It turns out, those shocking comments were just the tip of the iceberg. In the past couple of days, Sheen has appeared on "the Today Show," "Piers Morgan Tonight," "20/20" and more, delivering mind-bogglingly scary/crazy/awesome/perfect (they're a little of all of these adjectives) phrases. To list them all would take forever, but, among the highlights:
*Frequent references to the word "winning," as well as "bi-winning: "I’m not bi-polar, I’m bi-winning. I win here and I win there."
*"I'm tired of pretending like I'm not bitchin', a total rock star from Mars, and people can't figure me out; they can't process me. I don't expect them to. You can't process me with a normal brain."
*"Clearly I have defeated this earthworm [Lorre] with my words, imagine what I would have done with my fire-breathing fists."
*Frequent references to having "tiger blood and Adonis DNA," and being a warlock.
And, my personal favorite: "I am on a drug, it's called Charlie Sheen. It's not available because if you try it you will die. Your face will melt off and your children will weep over your exploded body." That's right, everyone, Steven Spielberg and George Lucas have lied to you for 30 years, the Nazis were brought down by Sheen, not the Ark of the Covenant.
Debate continues over Sheen's mental condition - is he bipolar, having a manic episode? Is he high now, or is he now sober and crashing?
I'm not going to say that Sheen doesn't have some sort of mental anguish, but I honestly get the sense that the majority of his issues have to do with his massive ego. He's desperate to remain in the spotlight and truly believes he deserves more money for his work on "Two and a Half Men." Compared to someone like Gary Busey, a celebrity who has obvious mental issues/brain injuries, I see Sheen's meltdown as a different kind of breakdown. It's largely ego-driven.
This man has been pushing the limits for years, between the Heidi Fleiss scandal, the cocaine overdose(s), charges of domestic violence against his wives, and more. He knows he can get away with it - "Two and a Half Men" still became and remains a hit regardless of the stunts he pulls. So, he's going to pull out all the stops, all the egocentric thoughts in his head to get what he wants. This isn't a mental breakdown, it's an ego-driven one. Or, at least, that's what I'm going to tell myself so I don't feel bad about laughing endlessly at his "Sheenanigans."
If you haven't seen any of Sheen's recent interviews, here's a small clip of his "Today Show" interview.
Also worth checking out: Cats Quote Charlie Sheen and Sheen's new Twitter account.
What do you think? Are people being insensitive to a public mental breakdown, or is this just desserts for years of celebrity entitlement?
Saturday, February 12, 2011
Four Weddings and an angry viewer
Let me start by asking: Does anyone remember when TLC branded itself as "the Learning Channel"? These days, it's impossible to actually learn anything from the network, as most of their shows are pointless at best (I maintain that "Cake Boss" is a poor man's "Ace of Cakes"), exploitative at worst (anything involving the Gosselins or Duggars).
Somehow, on Friday nights, even though the show annoys me, I find myself sucked in by the network's "Say Yes to the Dress," which chronicles bridal shops in New York and Atlanta. My mom makes a habit out of watching these shows, so any time I go out in the living room, I inexplicably end up watching the entire episode to see what dress the woman picks.
However, I can't say the same for "Four Weddings," the network's competition show where four brides grade each others' weddings, with the winner receiving a honeymoon trip for her and her husband. This show bothers me on many levels, the most notable being the unnecessary competition and jealousy it creates among women during what should be an incredibly happy time in their lives. Sure, brides have certain desires for their weddings and they're allowed to spend a certain amount of money on their special day to celebrate marrying the person they love.
I feel a wedding should be special for each couple; it shouldn't be about competing with other couples to see who has a "better" wedding. There's already a gross stereotype about brides that exists (and is rehashed through shows such as "Bridezillas" and movies like "Bride Wars"), portraying them as vicious, picky monsters, who, as shown in "Bride Wars," compete against other women for a ridiculous notion of bride supremacy. Every woman can have the wedding they want, why does it have to be a competition with other women?
Shows like "Four Weddings" take away the romance and importance of a wedding and instead turn it into an unnecessary competition that elicits the worst in women. On the few episodes of "Four Weddings" I've seen, I've been amazed at some of the awful comments women make about the other contestants' weddings, likely so they can improve their chances at winning a honeymoon. I vastly preferred the network's "A Wedding Story" (even though it usually was a too saccharin for my tastes), because it just focused on one couple and the devotion they had for one another. It showed them preparing for the wedding they wanted to have, not the one that was going to be better than fellow brides.
I realize I may be reading too much into a guilty pleasure show. Yet, I'm still really bothered by "Four Weddings." Anyone else?
Somehow, on Friday nights, even though the show annoys me, I find myself sucked in by the network's "Say Yes to the Dress," which chronicles bridal shops in New York and Atlanta. My mom makes a habit out of watching these shows, so any time I go out in the living room, I inexplicably end up watching the entire episode to see what dress the woman picks.
However, I can't say the same for "Four Weddings," the network's competition show where four brides grade each others' weddings, with the winner receiving a honeymoon trip for her and her husband. This show bothers me on many levels, the most notable being the unnecessary competition and jealousy it creates among women during what should be an incredibly happy time in their lives. Sure, brides have certain desires for their weddings and they're allowed to spend a certain amount of money on their special day to celebrate marrying the person they love.
I feel a wedding should be special for each couple; it shouldn't be about competing with other couples to see who has a "better" wedding. There's already a gross stereotype about brides that exists (and is rehashed through shows such as "Bridezillas" and movies like "Bride Wars"), portraying them as vicious, picky monsters, who, as shown in "Bride Wars," compete against other women for a ridiculous notion of bride supremacy. Every woman can have the wedding they want, why does it have to be a competition with other women?
Shows like "Four Weddings" take away the romance and importance of a wedding and instead turn it into an unnecessary competition that elicits the worst in women. On the few episodes of "Four Weddings" I've seen, I've been amazed at some of the awful comments women make about the other contestants' weddings, likely so they can improve their chances at winning a honeymoon. I vastly preferred the network's "A Wedding Story" (even though it usually was a too saccharin for my tastes), because it just focused on one couple and the devotion they had for one another. It showed them preparing for the wedding they wanted to have, not the one that was going to be better than fellow brides.
I realize I may be reading too much into a guilty pleasure show. Yet, I'm still really bothered by "Four Weddings." Anyone else?
Saturday, January 29, 2011
Parks and Recreation returns as 30 Rock shines
This semester is killing me, much like the cold, possibly flu I currently have. So, I haven't had the time to update this blog, sadly.
However, this week for the BG News, I reviewed episode one of what is currently the funniest show on television, "Parks and Recreation." Words cannot adequately express my happiness now that the show is back on the air.
So, check out my review of "Parks and Rec" at BGNews.com.
Not only was last week's season premiere funny, but "the Flu," last night's episode, also delivered, largely thanks to Aubrey Plaza's April and Rashida Jones' Ann's hilarious hospital beside exchanges. Everyone, do yourselves a favor, please watch this show. If you watched season one and didn't find it funny, forget about that opinoin you formed and come in with an open mind, becasuse the show has become amazing.
Also, "30 Rock" was quite hilarious last night, mainly for making fun of the Jack/Liz shippers, even if this hilarious scene got the annoying OneRepublic song in my head.
My personal favorite joke? Upon the success of the NBC telethon for Mel Gibson and Jon Gosselin's private island, according to Jack, "It was our highest rating since that episode of 'SVU' when the detectives watched 'American Idol,'" which I took to be a blatant jab at the "Office" episode from November which revolved around a viewing party for "Glee."
This network. I think the Jan. 14 episode of "SNL" summarized it best:
However, this week for the BG News, I reviewed episode one of what is currently the funniest show on television, "Parks and Recreation." Words cannot adequately express my happiness now that the show is back on the air.
So, check out my review of "Parks and Rec" at BGNews.com.
Not only was last week's season premiere funny, but "the Flu," last night's episode, also delivered, largely thanks to Aubrey Plaza's April and Rashida Jones' Ann's hilarious hospital beside exchanges. Everyone, do yourselves a favor, please watch this show. If you watched season one and didn't find it funny, forget about that opinoin you formed and come in with an open mind, becasuse the show has become amazing.
Also, "30 Rock" was quite hilarious last night, mainly for making fun of the Jack/Liz shippers, even if this hilarious scene got the annoying OneRepublic song in my head.
My personal favorite joke? Upon the success of the NBC telethon for Mel Gibson and Jon Gosselin's private island, according to Jack, "It was our highest rating since that episode of 'SVU' when the detectives watched 'American Idol,'" which I took to be a blatant jab at the "Office" episode from November which revolved around a viewing party for "Glee."
This network. I think the Jan. 14 episode of "SNL" summarized it best:
Friday, January 7, 2011
James Van Der Beek, Joshua Jackson use Dawson's Creek fame for humor
I like seeing people in the public eye becoming Internet savvy, realizing they can use it to help their careers, poke fun at themselves and connect with fans.
For those of us who grew up in the late '90s, even if we didn't watch the show, we were all familiar with "Dawson's Creek" and Katie Holmes' Joey Potter and her love triangle with Pacey Whitter (Joshua Jackson) and Dawson Leery (James Van Der Beek). One season three episode of the show yielded an emotional reaction from Dawson that lived in infamy on the Internet, "crying Dawson." For years, Internet users have been using the awkward cry to feign sadness and express sarcasm.
This week Van Der Beek partnered with FunnyOrDie.com to create James Van Der Memes, a website which recognizes the permeation of "crying Dawson" online by allowing Van Der Beek to create a series of new emotion-filled animated gifs. My personal favorite, "No You Didn't":
Similarly, at last year's ComiCon, Jackson took a break from promoting his Fox show "Fringe" to hold his own "Pacey-Con" to celebrate his character, complete with Pacey fan fiction Jackson wrote:
Sure, these acts could be seen as pandering to the Internet and past fans in order to resurrect popularity (especially in Van Der Beek's case, since his last show, "Mercy," did not make it past season one). But I think it's funny that these two former co-stars are using their breakout roles and dumb Internet jokes to acknowledge their fans. With Van Der Beek, he's laughing at his own awkward acting moment, and as someone who collects gifs, his myriad of new expressions are quite nice additions to my collection.
For those of us who grew up in the late '90s, even if we didn't watch the show, we were all familiar with "Dawson's Creek" and Katie Holmes' Joey Potter and her love triangle with Pacey Whitter (Joshua Jackson) and Dawson Leery (James Van Der Beek). One season three episode of the show yielded an emotional reaction from Dawson that lived in infamy on the Internet, "crying Dawson." For years, Internet users have been using the awkward cry to feign sadness and express sarcasm.
This week Van Der Beek partnered with FunnyOrDie.com to create James Van Der Memes, a website which recognizes the permeation of "crying Dawson" online by allowing Van Der Beek to create a series of new emotion-filled animated gifs. My personal favorite, "No You Didn't":
Similarly, at last year's ComiCon, Jackson took a break from promoting his Fox show "Fringe" to hold his own "Pacey-Con" to celebrate his character, complete with Pacey fan fiction Jackson wrote:
Sure, these acts could be seen as pandering to the Internet and past fans in order to resurrect popularity (especially in Van Der Beek's case, since his last show, "Mercy," did not make it past season one). But I think it's funny that these two former co-stars are using their breakout roles and dumb Internet jokes to acknowledge their fans. With Van Der Beek, he's laughing at his own awkward acting moment, and as someone who collects gifs, his myriad of new expressions are quite nice additions to my collection.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)