 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
June 2008 Archives
Hollywood Should Balk at Prospect of a Strike Two
June 30, 2008 8:32 AM
One minute after midnight tonight, the contract expires between the Screen Actors Guild (SAG) and the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers (AMPTP). There's no imminent strike threat, but when another Hollywood union, the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA), announces its separately negotiated deal with AMPTP on July 8, SAG may reject the particulars of that deal and seek strike authorization from its own membership.
Bottom line: There could be a strike two, another crippling Hollywood work stoppage in the same 12-month period. Bottom line to the bottom line: Anyone else who goes on strike in Hollywood this year is a certifiable idiot.
What's at stake, in the small picture, are the same issues for which the Writers Guild of America (WGA) walked out in November 2007 -- chief among them, clearer and fairer compensation for new media. What complicates the picture, this time around, is that the WGA settled for a fairly paltry deal, and AFTRA is said to be about to do the same.
So the choices by the SAG membership are either to follow the WGA and AFTRA lead and settle for less, or go on strike and not settle at all. Meanwhile, there's the additional complicating factor of a SAG-AFTRA membership overlap. SAG, by far the bigger gorilla in this fight, has 120,000 members to 70,000 for AFTRA -- And 44,000 of those AFTRA members, more than 60 percent, also belong to SAG.
Messy, messy, messy. And AMPTP, the greedy land baron in all of this, is stirring up the pot, and the press, by putting famous faces to the feuding factions. Tom Hanks and Susan Sarandon are on the AFTRA side. Jack Nicholson and Martin Sheen are siding with SAG.
But a second strike would be so crippling to the flow of Hollywood entertainment right now that whatever gains negotiated by a protracted strike would most likely be offset by long-term losses. Not only in revenue, but in momentum. In audience loyalty. In audience numbers, period.
Many movies, right now, are hitting the pause buttons on their production remotes, waiting to see what will happen next. Many TV shows, on the other hand, are diving headlong into production to stockpile whatever they can -- even though, if a SAG strike becomes a reality in August, the fall TV season will be even more pathetic than it already threatens to be.
And that, my friends, could throw the entire broadcast TV equation into free fall. Deny and anger the audience one more time, and the networks may never get them back.
True TV Tributes Deserve Hours, Not Moments
June 27, 2008 7:54 AM
Tonight's TV choices include several last-minute prime-time additions, programmed by their respective networks to honor recently deceased stars. Turner Classic Movies presents three movies by Cyd Charisse, and Home Box Office repeats George Carlin's final standup comedy special. These are very welcome moves, and ones from which other networks could learn a valuable lesson...
When Tim Russert died earlier this month, news organizations devoted hour after hour -- many hours in a row on Friday cable news the day he died, and several additional tribute hours on NBC, including Russert's own Meet the Press, in the days and weeks afterward.
Whatever you watched, you were presented clip after clip of key moments from Russert's on-air triumphs: holding the dry-erase board during the 2000 election-night coverage, grilling politicians on Meet the Press, and so on. It was almost like, in a weird way, we were watching Russert's life pass before our eyes, with image after image somehow adding up to a life.
But nowhere, that I saw, did any broadcast or cable network present a sample of Russert's work undiluted. Here's an hour from, say, his first time hosting Meet the Press, or his best interviews. We got appetizers, but not meals. We could taste, but not chew. Certainly, in the wee hours on MSNBC and CNBC, there was room for such well-timed reruns.
Contrast that to when George Carlin died this week, and HBO quickly programmed two nights' worth of the comedian's old HBO specials on sister network HBO2, in prime time. The last of those specials, It's Bad for Ya, televised earlier this year, is presented tonight at 9 p.m. ET on HBO itself. It's worth seeing, certainly -- but watching those old specials, in their entirety, was a unique and revelatory way to watch an artist and his art mature.
Even the first special, 1977's George Carlin at USC, was wonderful to watch at full length. Back then, HBO was still so skittish about televising Carlin's "Seven Dirty Words" routine that it had former 60 Minutes contributor Shana Alexander introduce the special, explaining the rawness -- and artistic merit -- of what was to come. Then, about an hour into the special, just before Carlin launched into his "Dirty" routine, HBO stopped the tape -- to invite viewers who may be offended by the upcoming material to leave with their sensitive sensibilities intact.
Can you imagine HBO pulling such a stunt today, midway through Def Comedy Jam? That's how far we've come, and Carlin's envelope-pushing, seen in that special (and again Wednesday) in all its unedited boldness, was no small part of the advance.
Similarly, to be able to see Cyd Charisse dancing with Gene Kelly in Singin' in the Rain tonight at 8 p.m. ET on TCM, and with Fred Astaire in The Band Wagon (10 p.m. ET) and Silk Stockings (midnight ET), is to see an artist blossom and radiate before our eyes. Not just in five-second clips, but in complete numbers, in entire movies.
Astaire liked to stage his dance sequences so there was minimal editing, so you could enjoy the totality of the performances and see the entire body at work. Seeing the entire body of work makes just as much sense, when paying tribute to an artist, and both Charisse and Carlin have been served well this week. And NBC is serving Carlin well this weekend, too, by repeating, in its entirety, his appearance as host of the very first edition of Saturday Night Live.
Other networks, please take note.
For Summer-Starved Quality TV Fans, ABC's "Hopkins" Is Just What the Doctor Ordered
June 26, 2008 7:22 AM
There are other places today where I'm talking excitedly and approvingly about Hopkins, the new six-part ABC documentary series premiering tonight at 10 ET. I'm reviewing the show on Fresh Air with Terry Gross, and have posted a review of the show on my Broadcasting & Cable blog. But here, I want to rave a little more, for a few other reasons.
Before I forget, if you want to hear my review on Fresh Air, you can listen in at your normal time on your local NPR radio station, or visit the Fresh Air website about 3 p.m. ET to hear it online. Here's that link. As for my Broadcasting & Cable blog, you can link to that here.
But now, for the rest. Those two reviews talk about the fine lineage and excellent quality of Terry Wrong's new nonfiction production, and how this second visit to Baltimore's Johns Hopkins Hospital is, though a bit more slick in tone and style, just as impressive as its predecessor, Hopkins 24/7, which ABC ran eight long years ago.
But I want to address, just for a second, how smart Hopkins is compared to most of the other summer prime-time network fare we're being offered. And it seems only fair to start with ABC, since Hopkins was promoted during such mind-numbing ABC fare as Wipeout and Wife Swap.
Where's the intelligent viewer to go these days to watch broadcast TV without getting sick to the stomach? (And if it's sick to the stomach you want, don't forget Hurl!, the intentional-upchuck show that premieres next month on G4.)
Take away Wednesday's Prime Time: The Outsiders, which was a superficial look at Amish teens anyway, and look at ABC's Monday through Wednesday prime-time lineup:
The Bachelorette (two hours). The Mole. Wipeout. I Survived a Japanese Game Show. Wife Swap. Supernanny. I've known stables that featured less horse manure than that.
NBC, in the same three-day period, presented -- take a deep, cleansing breath -- American Gladiators, Nashville Star, Deal or No Deal, America's Got Talent, Baby Borrowers and Celebrity Circus. Which is worse? Tough call. But from a distance, both lineups smell pretty much the same.
That's why Hopkins is so deserving of being embraced. It's smart, and presumes its viewers are, too.
In summer, especially, that's a very welcome rarity.
ABC's "Japanese Game Show" Is Better Than Expected, but "Wipeout" Is Even Worse
June 25, 2008 9:28 AM
Wipeout and I Survived a Japanese Game Show, ABC's new series premiering last night, weren't sent out in advance for critics to preview -- no doubt because ABC figured there was little point. And yes, Wipeout was even more horrendous and repulsive than expected -- but I Survived a Japanese Game Show (and I'm as shocked to write this as you may be to read it) actually wasn't that bad.
On the surface, both shows are designed to require contestants to run a gauntlet of physically demanding, visually goofy tasks, making them look like videogame characters in a cartoon world of colorful challenges. But the key difference between these two shows is the same thing that separates Fear Factor from Amazing Race: At its core, one show is mean, while the other is fun.
I Survived a Japanese Game Show punks its contestants, initially, by sending them to Japan and throwing them unexpectedly onto foreign -- very foreign -- game-show sets, where they compete as teams in front of bleachers full of Japanese audience members. Based on the results of these challenges, losing teams must select members for possible elimination, while they rub each other the wrong way in cramped living quarters. Very Hell's Kitchen, with an Iron Chef flavor and a Survivor feel.
The unexpected, enjoyable part of Japanese Game Show is the playfulness. Contestants are costumed as giant insects and told to jump from trampolines onto a target of superimposed car passengers. The challenge is called "Big Bugs Splat on Windshield," and, as one contestant explains with a smile, "It's like darts, but your body is the dart, and you're dressed like a bug."
Winners of one challenge get a VIP tour of Tokyo, while losers have to become rickshaw drivers. And when a player is eliminated, he or she is carried out by a small gaggle of black-suited Japanese men, as the audience waves arms and chants "Sayonara!" All very silly. But somehow, all very benign, and a lot more enjoyable than anticipated.
Wipeout, on the other hand, is a puerile mess, and ABC should say "Sayonara" to it as quickly as possible. If you played a drinking game with this juvenile show, and took a shot every time one of the hosts said the phrase "big balls" (the name of one of the obstacle-course challenges), you'd be in rehab before the closing credits.
Wipeout is, as one host helpfully explained, "the show where other people risk bodily harm so you can point and laugh." Except I'm not laughing. I'm grimacing, as they get knocked into the mud by the Sucker Punch or bouncing like a pinball between the big balls. (Take another drink.) Contestants end up muddy and nauseous, and I know just how they feel.
After watching Wipeout, I'm sick to my stomach, too -- and my immediate impulse, like theirs, is to go shower.
Lots to Cover: Your "Get Smart" Guesses, Your Website Ad Advice, "P.O.V." and Thoughts on George Carlin and Tom Brokaw
June 24, 2008 7:36 AM
First things first. I'm absolutely blown away by the thoughtfulness, support and incredibly high caliber of writing in your emails to me about my website advertising dilemma. Anyone reading your comments to yesterday's blog should be convinced, beyond any doubt, what a smart and discerning bunch of people are visiting this website. You may have convinced me to rethink my position -- give me a few days to digest it all -- but boy, if I ever seek out ads and a advertising director, rest assured your comments will be Exhibit A in any sales pitch.
So thanks, truly. If this website is going to succeed, it'll be a slow build, and I can't tell you how honored I am to have you here with me at the beginning. You're a classy, smart bunch, and your compliments and trust should keep me going for quite a while.
--
Now to Get Smart. I learned, with Sex & the City, that the first reported weekend grosses often are readjusted -- so when initial reports gave Get Smart first place for last weekend with a $39.1 million take, I decided to wait a day and see what happened. I admit to being almost giddy, however, to having predicted an opening-weekend total of $40 million.
Today's figures adjusted the total downward slightly, to $38.7 million, so my guess wasn't quite as accurate. But the guess by Jack Cheng, the first reader to post a prediction, certainly was. He went with $38.5 million, which is damned impressive. I'll contact you, Jack, to negotiate a suitably shabby prize. What'll it be? ESPN hockey puck? Blue's Clues notepad? Wild Chronicles survival kit? The Whitest Kids U'Know toilet paper?
(Oh, and the Get Smart cameo I loved? Right at the end, Patrick Warburton as Hymie the robot. For that alone, bring on the sequel!)
Meanwhile, since I predicted $55 million for Sex and the City, which earned $56.8 its opening weekend, and $40 million against the actual $38.7 for Get Smart, I hereby offer my services to any and all studios as a freelance prognosticator regarding movies made from TV shows. Please contact me quickly, before I blow it by guessing horribly wrong on next month's X-Files: I Want to Believe film.
--
Tonight's season opener of the PBS documentary series P.O.V. (10 p.m. ET; check local listings) is a first-time film by Katrina Browne, whose ancestors were, by her account, the largest slave trading family in U.S. history. It's a strong start for what looks to be another solid season, and two extended conversations in Browne's Traces of the Trade: A Story from the Deep North are shakingly memorable.
In one, after traveling to Ghana ("the Ellis Island of slavery"), Browne and the nine relatives who made the trip with her sit and have a roundtable discussion with, among others, the locals whose ancestors were stolen by Brown's ancestors, the DeWolfs. ("Are you not ashamed?" they are asked -- and they are.) Back home, after the voyage, Browne and her fellow voyagers discover, as the cameras roll, that all but one of them went to college at Princeton, Harvard or Brown. Their family position of privilege, brought on by the selling of other human beings, continues.
--
Finally, reactions to the death of George Carlin, and to the appointment of Tom Brokaw as the interim host of NBC's Meet the Press.
Carlin has been eulogized on this website already, by Diane Werts' wonderful piece yesterday, which you can read here. All I'd like to add is that the man who was selected to host the very first episode of NBC's Saturday Night Live back in 1975 is indeed a comedy icon. He lent that show credibility -- counter-culture credibility, which was totally absent from TV in those days -- from the start, just by agreeing to appear on its premiere.
As for Brokaw stepping in as the temporary replacement after the untimely death of Tim Russert, that's a brilliant choice. I wrote about it in a report for the Broadcasting & Cable website, which you can read here -- but the gist is that by putting Brokaw in that seat until Election Day, NBC is serving the legacies of both Russert and Meet the Press proudly.
Can I Be Trusted to Accept -- and Decline -- Ads? I Need Your "P.O.V."
June 22, 2008 11:19 PM
I need your help. If you're a regular reader of this website -- or any member of the print, electronic or online media or academic community -- I'm looking for guidance. I'm embarking on a path that may be unprecedented, and may also be foolish. But since this newly blazed trail is dependent entirely upon your trust in my opinions, I figure I should solicit, and trust, your opinions as well.
When I launched TV WORTH WATCHING last November, the day my farewell TV column was published in the New York Daily News, I included a pledge for the future. I would never accept ads from any show or network I didn't like, and the acceptance of any ad wouldn't dictate how, or whether, I wrote about, that show or network in the future.
At the time, that was just a theory. But now, unless I'm overruled by public opinion, it's about to become reality. The folks at the PBS documentary series P.O.V. approached me a few months ago about running an ad on my site, keyed to the June launch of their 21st season. We struck a deal, my website guy inserted it on the right side of the page as our inaugural ad (thanks, Rich!), and it's been running all month. Check it out and poke around... but, please, finish reading this first.
Because the season premiere, Katrina Browne's Traces of the Trade: A Story from the Deep North, is televised tomorrow night at 10 ET (check local listings), I figured now was the time to defend my decision to accept advertising -- and to seek advice on how to proceed in the future.
First, and very important (at least to me), this never was intended as a nonprofit enterprise. I've been writing best bets daily, and columns (a.k.a. blogs) five days a week, for eight months now, for no salary -- and my Daily News wages, at the same time, have vanished into the "no salary" category also. Making the site subscription-based was something I'd never consider -- anyone who cares enough about my opinion to seek it out has me in their debt already, not the other way around.
But ads from programs and networks I support critically anyway, that's another thing. Except for my column/blog, which addresses anything relevant about television, TV WORTH WATCHING -- by design and nature as well as by name -- is meant to identify and champion the best. The best shows, the best DVD releases, the best books about TV, even the best theme songs. In an Internet universe where so much is so negative, the aim here is to celebrate the positive.
To me, it makes sense that the ads should reflect that same sensibility. You might find an ad for NBC's 30 Rock on this site, but you'll never find an ad for the same network's Celebrity Circus. It all comes down to personal taste on my part, and trust on your part. Trust in my ability to keep advertising and editorial separate, and trust in the consistency and honesty in my body of work.
Here's the deal. I worked as a TV critic on daily newspapers from 1975 until last November. Time and again, over the years, there have been occasions where appearances of impropriety have been raised, confronted and tested. My favorite was when I had it written into my contract at the New York Post, when it was owned by Rupert Murdoch, that I had editorial independence when it came to story selection and the content of my reviews.
So when Murdoch launched the Fox network and sent one show after another down the pike, I hated them all, and said so in his flagship New York paper. Hated them all, that is, until Fox developed The Tracey Ullman Show and its spinoff The Simpsons, which I adored from the start. That may not have gotten me on Murdoch's Christmas card list (in fact, it didn't), but readers, I hope, decided over time I could be trusted.
I still love The Simpsons, which is now approaching its 20th year. There aren't that many TV critics still working who were around to review that first Christmas special in 1989, and that's the other reason I'm hoping to have built enough residual goodwill to support the concept of advertising.
If you've read this site with any regularity, my tastes should be fairly transparent. I gravitate towards smart dramas, smart and silly comedies, and, because I also love movies, tend to mix in an old black-and-white classic among my nightly recommendations. But what I hope I bring to the Internet, which a lot of bloggers don't, is a professionalism that comes from more than three decades of watching, and writing about, TV. My own output, over the years, is the standard to which I ask, and hope, to be judged.
That means, when I write about about the first handful of programs in the new season of P.O.V., it isn't because of any ad. It's because I've taken the time to see all five programs. All of them, by coincidence or design, have to do with race or class, and past or present injustices inflicted on various minorities. And each documentary, in its own way, is stirring and disturbing. (I'll review the season opener in more detail tomorrow.)
P.O.V., in a way, is the perfect test case for advertising on this site, because the series premiered in 1988 -- predating even The Simpsons -- and I reviewed it positively from the start. I don't keep every clip from those days (a lightning strike saw to that), but I do have two 1990 reviews, from my New York Post days, calling P.O.V. "a pointedly, almost defiantly, subjective showcase" and "intriguing and indispensable."
Like any anthology showcase, P.O.V. has had its ups and downs, and my thumbs have gone up and down accordingly. But anyone who thinks that, back in 1989 and 1990, I was supporting P.O.V. because I envisioned -- a mere two decades down the line -- that there would be an Internet, I would have a website, and P.O.V. would be ripe for the ad-revenue plucking -- is even more insane than I am for starting TV WORTH WATCHING in the first place.
But I believe in quality television, and P.O.V. easily, proudly qualifies. I hope I've done enough -- in print, in books, on the radio, even on the web -- to establish credibility as I shift into this scary new medium. The question is -- and it's a question that's anything but rhetorical, so please weigh in -- am I right?
And if not, can anyone suggest a workable Plan B?
"Get Smart" Movie -- Your Mission, Should You Decide to Accept It...
June 20, 2008 7:10 AM
Yesterday, I told you what I think of the new movie remake of the classic Get Smart spy spoof TV series. Now, because I'm really curious about how it will play with audiences, I'd like to know what YOU think...
So if you're going to see the movie, please report back and share your thoughts -- what you liked and disliked, what you were happy they included and sorry they excluded, whether you enjoyed the mix of comedy and action, and, perhaps most of all, what you thought of the casting and performances, from Steve Carell and Anne Hathaway as Maxwell Smart and Agent 99 on down to the cameos.
A few weeks ago, when I asked you guys and gals to predict the first-week box office for Sex and the City, I got a wonderful response -- and two readers named Chris, whose guesses were closest, ended up with tacky prizes from my basement floor. One got an ER first-aid kit, and the other got a Travel Channel AM/FM radio shaped like a mini-suitcase.
Who needs Million Dollar Password when you've got riches like these underfoot?
So let's play again. I've got enough junk on the floor to support another cheapo prize for whomever gets closest to the opening-weekend Get Smart grosses without going over. Last time, my (ahem) amazingly accurate prediction -- $55 million, against the actual $56.8 million -- was published in advance in my Broadcasting & Cable column. This time, I'll just go ahead and guess here and now, but I don't expect lightning to strike twice.
(Lightning already struck my house once, but that's another story.)
The same-day opening of the Mike Myers Love Guru movie makes it tougher to predict, but I'll go ahead and say $40 million for Get Smart. This one day, though, ignore what I say, and make your own guesses.
And remember -- once you see the movie, if you do, please come back and weigh in. I'll be reading all your reports... and loving it.
"Get Smart" Movie Remake: Sorry About That, Chief
June 19, 2008 8:20 AM
There are moments of the new Get Smart movie, which opens tonight at midnight, that are truly funny -- a sight gag here, a sly reference there, a perfectly delivered line of dialogue over there. And just before it ends, there's a cameo appearance that absolutely screams for a sequel.
But in the end, this movie remake of the classic Get Smart TV series -- and here's a line I'm betting will be used by at least a plurality of the movie critics reviewing the film -- missed it by that much.
The movie got some things right, so let's salute those first. It found a way to incorporate the now museum-dusty props from the 1965-70 TV show -- the shoephone, Maxwell Smart's red sports car -- by placing them in an actual CONTROL museum. It updated the multiple sliding doors gag to good effect, and made room for Bill Murray to make an uncredited appearance as an agent in disguise. And most of Don Adams' catch phrases as the original Secret Agent 86 -- "Sorry about that, chief," "Missed it by that much," "the old __________ trick") are present and accounted for.
The casting, too, is strong. Alan Arkin, as the new Chief, is dry and delightful, and earns the biggest laugh in the movie -- a profanity-laden reaction at the end of one chase scene. Anne Hathaway, as Agent 99, even wears a wig in one extended sequence (see top photo), just to approximate the mod look of Barbara Feldon circa 1966. She's stronger, more independent and less enamored of Max than in the original series -- more like Emma Peel than Agent 99 -- but the changes fit the character as well as the times, and Hathaway looks great.
Dwayne Johnson, as tough-guy Agent 23, brings less to the mix than Arkin or Hathaway, but that's as much a function of plot as character. And Steve Carell, as Max, plays him as -- well, as Steve Carell, basically. Nothing wrong with that. Instead, the problem with his character is the same problem that ultimately dilutes the movie: a lack of consistency.
In some scenes, Max is a bumbler (throwing the phone, throwing the grappling hook). In other scenes, he's comically adroit, flexible and accurate. In some scenes, he's naive or dumb. In others, he's sly and clever. And the film's producers, and director Peter Segal, chose not to present Get Smart as a straight spy spoof, in the mold of the Austin Powers or In Like Flint movies -- but as an action/comedy hybrid. There are extended chase and action scenes that are played not for laughs, but for suspense. But there isn't any.
At the end of Get Smart the movie, an actor shows up making a brief, unexpected appearance as Hymie the Robot, a beloved character from the original series. Just the sight of this actor (whose identity I'll keep secret, so you can enjoy it yourself) playing this part makes me hope the movie earns enough to launch a sequel, because a Hymie-Max-99 movie would be a vast improvement on this often awkward and inconsistent relaunch effort.
The filmmakers have the right core cast. Now all they have to do next time, if there is a next time, is trust the tone of the Buck Henry-Mel Brooks original series, and go for laughs all the way. The teen boys can get their cinematic action fix satisfied elsewhere... but what made Get Smart funny then works just as well now.
Good DVD for a Slow Summer: "Californication"
June 17, 2008 9:14 AM
Showtime's cable and satellite network reaches about 15 million subscribers, which means the vast majority of America hasn't seen its programming firsthand. That's why secondhand, which means DVD releases, is so meaningful -- and why today's DVD release of the first season of Californication is such good news.
Californication stars David Duchovny as Hank Moody, a New York writer who encounters both success and failure after moving to Los Angeles -- success by having his novel sold and adapted into a hit movie, and failure by subsequently enduring writer's block and the failure of his long-term romantic relationship.
Natascha McElhone co-stars as Karen, the woman who got away, young Madeleine Martin plays their daughter Becca, Madeline Zima plays Mia, a very young woman who seduces Hank with ulterior motives, and Evan Handler from Sex and the City plays Hank's literary agent and best friend.
What's delightful about this series, which premiered last year, is how it manages to be so mature and so immature simultaneously. Hank, at the start of the series, is a self-loathing hedonist, going from bed to bed and woman to woman -- but he's capable of true love, because he adores his daughter (it's mutual), and wants nothing more than to get back with Karen. Problem is, she's engaged to another man.
Over the course of the first season, Hank's path to redemption, and to rediscover his muse, takes him (and us) on a fairly wild ride. Situations that seem outlandish, presented only for shock value, are built upon so that their repercussions are fully explored. That includes romantic conquests, one-night stands, office flirtations and parental boundaries.
Californication is one of the series, like Dexter, that has redefined and reinvigorated Showtime, propelling it out of HBO's shadow and making it a major creative force in its own right. Buy season one here -- and enjoy!
Tim, Tiger, the Tonys and Kobe: What a Father's Day for TV...
June 16, 2008 7:11 AM
From morning until midnight, broadcast TV yesterday provided one memorable, riveting Father's Day offering after another. Tim Russert, saluted on Meet the Press. Tiger Woods and Rocco Mediate, battling pain and age, respectively, at the U.S. Open. A series of great performances, and performers, at the Tony Awards. And then, finally, the end of Game 5 of the NBA Finals, with the Lakers holding onto a lead, for once, to force a Game 6.
What a day...
The Russert salute on Meet the Press, hosted warmly by Tom Brokaw, was very sweet, and often touching. If you wonder why such a fuss has been made over Russert's unexpected death, it's not only because of the sudden loss, and because Russert was such a good friend and adviser role model to so many. With his professionalism and dedication, he was one of the few TV news guys (or gals) left who embraced the old mold of serious, hard-working preparation, interrogation and analysis. You almost felt like his fellow journalists were mourning the death of quality TV journalism -- or, at least, one more piece of it.
As well they might.
But what got me the most yesterday, in the Russert salute, was the show's use of a previous Russert Father's Day signoff to end his program -- a signoff in which he saluted, quite lovingly, both his father and his only son. Personally as well as professionally, Russert had his priorities lined up just right, and leaves quite a legacy in both departments.
Then came golf, with Tiger Woods entering the final day of a major championship with a one-strike lead -- which he promptly lost after the first hole, and a shaky and painful start. Meanwhile, 45-year-old Rocco Mediate kept plugging, playing and smiling, and wound up in the clubhouse with the lead, waiting to see whether Tiger, who had regained and re-lost the lead over the course of the day (and the day of the course), could pull off one more miracle and catch up.
He did, on the last putt on the last green, forcing an 18-hole playoff that takes place today. ESPN covers the first nine holes (11:30 a.m. ET), and NBC takes over at 2 p.m. ET for the back nine. The best golfer in the world, nursing an ailing knee, versus a man who's never won a major, and who entered the Open as a qualifier, not even ranked in the Top 150 -- the stage is set for sports drama at its best, no matter what happens.
While Tiger and Rocco were still battling it out, the Tonys began on CBS -- and began with the breathtaking opening number from The Lion King. Other performance highlights last night included a reunion of the original cast from Rent, numbers from Sunday in the Park with George and South Pacific, a rousing performance by Stew and company from Passing Strange, and Patti LuPone singing "Everything's Coming Up Roses" from Gypsy -- earning a boisterous standing ovation then, and a Tony soon afterward. It was nice, joked the woman who had last won for Evita in 1980, to pick up one of these awards "every 30 years or so."
And while singers were singing and golfers were golfing, basketball players were shooting and fouling, as the Los Angeles Lakers held off another fourth-quarter surge by the Boston Celtics to win Game 5, avoid losing the 2008 NBA Finals, and send the tournament back to Boston on Tuesday. The Celtics were going for the tying basket in the final minutes when Kobe Bryant forced a turnover and slam-dunked an emphatic winner.
At the end of that game, having spent so many hours keeping at least one eye on so many captivating TV events, I was exhausted -- but, as happens too seldom these days, impressed by what broadcast TV can do what it tries. NBC's Russert and golf, CBS's Tonys, ABC's basketball: There was something wonderful for everybody, and, yesterday, everything seemed wonderful to me.
So today, watch the U.S. Open playoff. And if you get a chance, please listen to today's Fresh Air with Terry Gross. I'm the guest host, and interview Kelli O'Hara from South Pacific (which won for Best Musical Revival last night, among several other Tonys) and Jenji Kohan, creator of Showtime's Weeds, which returns for its fourth season tonight. I'll also, wearing my TV critic's hat, offer a tribute to Russert.
So little time, so much to watch...
Father's Day Choices: Remembering Old Broadway, Old TV, and Old TV Dads
June 13, 2008 7:33 AM
Father's Day is Sunday, and this year, it seems, it's a day to wallow in nostalgia, on or about TV. Sunday night offers competing prime-time awards shows: The Tony Awards on CBS, featuring an amazing competition among Broadway musical revivals, and the TV Land Awards, a nonstop stroll down TV's memory lane.
Plus, TV WORTH WATCHING's own Diane Werts has assembled a dizzyingly diverse list of DVD sets featuring famous and infamous TV dads. (Read it here.) Put them all together, they spell F-A-T-H-E-R...
Of the two Sunday shows, I'd choose the Tonys (8 p.m. ET). Much as I love vintage TV, and as much as I chuckle at the idea of a taped piece featuring Laverne & Shirley, a.k.a. Penny Marshall and Cindy Williams, getting accosted by photographers as though they were Lindsay Lohan and Paris Hilton, the TV Land Awards (9 p.m. ET) is the sort of show that's better to watch on one of the endless instances when TV Land reruns it. That way, you can zip through the boring parts -- and the interminable commercial breaks.
The Tonys, over on CBS, are a one-shot deal. And this year, you'll get a shot to see and hear some of the best musical revivals mounted not just this year, but in recent memory. Kelli O'Hara in South Pacific, Patti LuPone in Gypsy, the imaginative reworking of Sunday in the Park with George -- terrific, terrific, terrific. And this telecast will give you a free taste of all three, and also of such thoroughly modern musicals as Passing Strange and In the Heights. And, of course, the non-musical plays.
The lineup is so strong, it ought to make for a very memorable show. I'm rooting for O'Hara -- and, by the way, I recorded an interview with her recently for Fresh Air with Terry Gross, and it's scheduled to run Monday. I'll be hosting that day, and also talking to Jenji Kohan, creator of Showtime's Weeds, which returns for a new season that night. So please tune in.
And please check out Diane's Father's Day overview, also, and add her blog -- which you can find beneath the daily BEST BETS, or by clicking Diane Werts in the navigation bar -- to your daily reading habit. Oh, and speaking of the navigation bar -- we've added a Best Bets button there as well. So if you want to read the daily BEST BETS in a larger, easier-to-read format, click on that button, too.
Oh, and all you dads out there: Happy Father's Day. If my now-grown kids are reading this, don't you forget it. Or me...
"Celebrity Circus" Another Big (Top) Network Embarrassment
June 12, 2008 9:24 AM
Even when I come to new series with apprehension, I'm prepared, and often hoping, to be pleasantly surprised. And I must admit that NBC's Celebrity Circus, which premiered last night and was unavailable for preview because it was performed live, wasn't as bad as I expected.
It was worse. And it consumed two hours of my life I'll never get back.
Hosted by red-suited ringmaster Joey Fatone, whose own career was revived thanks to Dancing with the Stars, Celebrity Circus is the worst collection of poor performers performing poorly since... well, since the CBS debacle Secret Talents of the Stars, which was canceled in April after one episode. We'll never know who would have won that horrible talent show, and Danny Bonaduce, who didn't even get a chance to compete, will have to find another place to display his skills at riding a unicycle.
Given the state of today's television, I'm betting he'll find that place before too long. Probably on NBC.
These programs are easy targets, like shooting fish at the bottom of the barrel. Robert Bianco of USA Today said of Secret Talents of the Stars that "you can be excused for asking whether some contestants have any talents that aren't a secret." And Rick Kushman of The Sacramento Bee, assessing the talent roster for Celebrity Circus, dubbed it "Celebrity Trainwreck."
For this new NBC series, the definitions of both celebrity and circus are being stretched to their limits. Line up all the celebrities, police lineup style, and I'm not sure I could identify any of them. Wee Man, maybe. Christopher Knight, only because he's made reality TV his new career, after The Brady Bunch was his only old one. Blu Cantrell, Janet Evans and Antonio Sabato Jr.? No way.
And the three judges, cast in the apparently inviolable mold of American Idol? The worst was Louie Spence, who threw about his sexual orientation so aggressively (Fatone called him "the queen bee" at one point) that he had no problem making a gay play for Sabato in his post-performance assessment, and generally drawing attention to himself with a series of remarks ill-suited to an ostensibly family show.
It's hard to imagine many families, or other viewers, sitting still for this TV swill for long. Knight's high-wire act had some elements of drama to it, but the vast majority of Celebrity Circus was drama-less, tension-less and talentless.
"The next trick is so dangerous," Fatone said before one act, "it was banned from the circus for 20 years." Would that Celebrity Circus receives a similar ban. Last night, it certainly earned one.
NBC's "Celebrity Circus": Another Sucker-Born-Every-Minute Move
June 11, 2008 8:13 AM
Tonight at 9:30 ET, NBC proudly presents its latest reality-TV competition show, Celebrity Circus. I say "proudly," because here it is, occupying valuable prime time at a time when network TV desperately needs to attract viewers, not repel them.
I haven't seen Celebrity Circus, so I can't say whether it's as lame, unwatchable and insulting as I suspect it is. We'll all pass judgment soon enough. But my expectations are low - about as low as they were for Secret Talents of the Stars, a similar showcase proudly presented by CBS in April, then not-so-proudly canceled after a single telecast.
As someone who loves quality TV, I've come to resent poorly made, low-aiming unscripted television series -- not only because they're a waste of time, but because they waste time that otherwise could be devoted to something better. Something, say, scripted.
Look at tonight's prime-time five-network lineup -- if you dare. Celebrity Circus is just one of eight unscripted offerings this evening, the others being ABC's Wife Swap and Supernanny reality shows, CBS's Price is Right Million Dollar Spectacular game show, Fox's So You Think You Can Dance competition show, NBC's Deal or No Deal game show, and CW's doubleheader of competition series, America's Next Top Model and Farmer Wants a Wife.
Because several of those shows are expanded episodes, that's a total of 10 hours of unscripted programming in a single night of prime time. Scripted shows, on the other hand, are represented only by ABC's Men in Trees, which leaves TV for good after tonight, and reruns of Criminal Minds and CSI: NY on CBS.
That's it. And that's sad.
And that's by no means a one-night anomaly. Yesterday there were five scripted shows in prime time, all repeats, and five unscripted ones -- nine, if you include news and sports. And tomorrow, on one of the most active nights for scripted TV, there are six shows featuring actors and actual scripts: new episodes of Swingtown and Fear Itself, and reruns of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation, Smallville, Supernatural and My Name Is Earl.
Unscripted fare? Four game and competition shows, including Million Dollar Password and Last Comic Standing. Add ABC's NBA Finals coverage to the mix, and it's a total of seven unscripted shows.
Celebrity Circus is setting up shop in what looks less and less like a Big Top -- and more and more like a Big Bottom.
"Soap" Navigates Slippery Slope of Overpopulated DVD Boxed Sets
June 10, 2008 9:08 AM
At the start of the 21st century, releasing TV series on DVD seemed like a gold mine so rich, so deep, the vein would never run dry. Less than a decade later, there still are plenty of old television series to be repackaged and sold -- but already, there's a serious problem. So many shows -- so little shelf space.
When The X-Files released its pioneering "complete first season" DVD boxed set in 2000, it demonstrated an appetite for TV series on DVD that appeared unquenchable. For studios owning those shows, it was a gold mine: except for remastering, packaging and promotion costs, and paying small rights fees to the creative personnel, these re-releases were pure profit. The boxed sets kept getting bigger, and the number of them kept getting larger.
This led to some extras-filled, comprehensive, oversized, gorgeously packaged sets such as Seinfeld: The Complete Series, a mammoth masterpiece of a comedy behemoth. In terms of laughs per dollar, it was a bargain even at its original price of $283.95. Now, discounted by Amazon at $209.99, it's an even better deal. (And if you buy it here, TV Worth Watching gets a tiny percentage: Costs you nothing more, helps me stay alive.)
But if you've seen this set for sale in your local video or bookstore, which is by no means automatic, how many have you seen there? One? Two? The truth of the matter is, when it comes to DVD megasets, the problem is one of physical space and available inventory. How many of these big boys can stores carry? And, on the other end, how many can TV fans afford?
That's why, though the 1977-81 ABC comedy series Soap has been released already on DVD, its re-release today is noteworthy for taking a new, shifting-tactic approach. The comedy, controversial in its time for both its caustic humor (Robert Guillaume as the sarcastic butler Benson, eventually given his own series) and its social irreverence (Billy Crystal played Jodie, the first openly gay series character on network television), was released in four complete-season box sets, each costing $29.95. Season one came out in 2003, and the others in 2004 and 2005.
But now comes Soap: The Complete Series, all four seasons, selling for $59.95 retail, and available from Amazon for $44.99. (Again, you can get it here.) The box in which it comes is about the same size as for a single-season release, so the savings are substantial in terms of shelf space as well as cost. That matters to retailers -- and, as home-video collections increase, matters to homeowners as well.
How did Sony Pictures Home Entertainment squeeze so much into so small a package? By minimizing the packaging. The discs -- all 12 of them -- are stacked on top of each other, like pancakes. Booklets and other written supporting material are nonexistent. Sony calls it "space-saver packaging," and might well be on to something.
The absolute best TV series, those of Seinfeld and West Wing stature, deserve ultra-deluxe status. But for many of them, if not most, a money-saver "space-saver" is the smart way to go.
One Good Side Effect of the Writers' Strike: Summer TV Documentaries
June 9, 2008 8:59 AM
There aren't many good side effects to the 2007-08 writers' strike, but one is just starting to become evident. A wealth of quality documentaries has been scheduled for summer -- some as ongoing recurring series, others scheduled to help fill the holes caused by a lack of scripted programming...
Tonight at 9 ET, HBO begins a summer-long run of Monday documentaries, including a July documentary on Heidi Fleiss and an August offering called Baghdad High. The series begins tonight with Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired, a feature-length study of the infamous director's underage sex scandal, as well as his marriage to actress Sharon Tate, one of the victims of the Charles Manson killings.
The documentary is very interesting, and contains many eye-opening elements, including accounts of misconduct by the judge in Polanski's trial -- but the most obviously missing, and valuable, element is sorely missed. The woman, 13 at the time Polanski gave her champagne and a Quaalude, photographed her in a hot tub and had sex with her, is interviewed anew for this film. But while she says other people weren't there and don't know what really happened, she never says what really happened, or offers her own perspective.
Other documentary series showing up soon include the PBS series P.O.V., the annual summer series returning later this month, and the ABC six-part series Hopkins, the continuation of a prime-time documentary series last shown (as Hopkins 24/7) in 2000. Hopkins begins June 26, and its prominent placement this time around owes a lot to the writers' strike.
So out of every bad comes some good. Unfortunately, out of every bad also comes a lot of worse -- so steel yourself for such summer fare as, sigh, Wipeout and I Survived a Japanese Game Show on ABC, and Wednesday's Celebrity Circus on NBC.
New CBS Drama Takes "Sybil" Liberties
June 6, 2008 8:05 AM
In 1976, Sally Field -- who, at the time, was all but dismissed as the cutie from TV's Gidget -- grabbed the brass ring by playing a series of distinctly different characters in the psychological miniseries Sybil, based on an actual case of what then was called multiple personality disorder. This weekend, 32 years later, CBS presents a new version... very, very quietly.
This telemovie, broadcast Saturday at 9 p.m. ET, stars Tammy Blanchard as Sybil, the young woman subject to blackouts, memory loss and other troubling behaviors. Her therapist, who slowly discovers and unravels the layers of alter egos buried within Sybil, is played by Jessica Lange. (In the original, Joanne Woodward played the part.)
Lange is, well, Jessica Lange. Blanchard already has triumphed on TV in one memorable docudrama -- as young Judy Garland in Life with Judy Garland: Me and My Shadows. Sybil is a classic TV property, a recognizable title. So what is it doing being burned off in June, on a Saturday night, with very little fanfare, after sitting on the CBS shelf for more than a year?
One reason: It's not as good as the original, which was twice as long and at least twice as good. I'm sooo old, I was a TV critic when the original was televised by NBC in 1976, and remember it being easily one of the best offerings that year. Sally Field attacked that part like a pit bull and never let go, Woodward was fabulous, and most of the scenes outside the therapist's office were from Sybil's point of view, making them jarringly unsettling, confusing and dramatic. This new version does some of that, but not nearly enough.
The truth is, though, this new Sybil isn't bad. If you don't compare it with the original, it's rather compelling, and the scenes between Blanchard and Lange are quietly intense, like no-men-allowed versions of HBO's In Treatment.
So why the summer burial? Because CBS, a few seasons ago, decided to follow the lead of other broadcast networks and get out of the telemovie business. Once there was no regular place to schedule them, there was little reason to televise or promote them. Sybil -- which, at least, features impressive stars and an ambitious story -- isn't the sort of thing the big broadcast networks are interested in making any longer.
Which is why they're not likely to be big broadcast networks for too much longer...
"Swingtown" Languishes on CBS, "Fear Itself" Surprises on NBC
June 5, 2008 10:10 AM
Tonight marks the arrival of two new series on the broadcast networks, and they couldn't be more different. One is Swingtown, a CBS drama that tries to mine the free-love 1970s for nostalgia and shock value; the other is Fear Itself, an NBC attempt to revive the near-dead anthology drama series.
First impressions? The only thing shocking about Swingtown is how dull it is -- while Fear Itself, based on the first three productions, is surprisingly... surprising.
The best thing about Swingtown, which is set in 1976, is Molly Parker, who gave one of many unforgettable performances in HBO's Deadwood. Here, she plays a woman who moves with her husband to a new neighborhood, where the couple across the street has an open marriage, a proclivity to party, and even a basement playroom with, apparently, a lot more than a vintage pinball machine.
Part of the premiere takes place on the Bicentennial, and Swingtown isn't above making much of the idea of "Independence Day" as its central heroine flirts with the idea of free love, free drugs and bra-free fashions. When the swinging husband across the street, played with playful smarm (or smarmy playfulness) by Grant Show, warns his alluring and outgoing wife that the new neighbors "might be a tough sell," she smiles and replies, "Easy is boring."
Sad to say, so is Swingtown. The people on the show who got to select the fashions, the furniture and especially the soundtrack music must have had a blast, but unlike Mad Men, there's no compelling story beneath the period veneer, and almost no characters that catch the heart as well as the eye. CBS promoted this series originally when unveiling its awful, attention-seeking lineup of Viva Laughlin and Kid Nation. Unfortunately, it's of the same sour vintage.
Fear Itself, on the other hand, is an interesting experiment. Tonight's opener, "Sacrifice," stars Jesse Plemons from Friday Night Lights as one of several cold-blooded characters happening upon an even colder-blooded clan at a remote location. It's a kissing, or biting, cousin of From Dusk Till Dawn, and it doesn't take long before one of the women takes out a needle, and demands attention by sewing up more than a wound.
"Spooked," next week's story, is a ghost story starring Eric Roberts as a private detective with a very private secret, and the next tale, "Family Man," stars Colin Ferguson of Eureka as the victim of a near-death accident and subsequent body swap. The ending of this one is truly tragic, and hard to shake.
With all these stories, there's enough inventiveness and unpredictability to make you want to keep viewing, and to return. Fear Itself, like last summer's Masters of Science Fiction on ABC, is a bold experiment deserving of more than the summer "showcase" to which it has been banished. Swingtown, though, is pretty much right where it belongs.
2008 Presidential Primary Contest Is History -- In More Ways Than One
June 4, 2008 10:16 AM
Iowa's caucus was the starting point, and last night's Montana and South Dakota primaries were the finish line, but the fight for the Democratic nomination appears to be over at last. It's history - and, in many ways, it's historic.
The obvious way this race has been historic is that it now positions Barack Obama as the first person of color representing a major party as its presumptive nominee for the nation's highest office. But there are more firsts, or historic aspects, to this 2008 campaign (which actually began in 2007), and today's the day to savor them.
First, there's the delight in witnessing a contest in which the conventional wisdom from most TV and print media, time and time again, turned out to be conventional stupidity. The media were quick to count John McCain out, slow to count Obama in, and premature in crowning Hillary Clinton early and making too much of the national prospects for everyone from Rudy Giuliani to Fred Thompson.
Second, there's the satisfaction, from the perspective of a TV critic and historian, that comes from the fact that Obama won his party's backing, or at least the necessary delegate and super-delegate count in the electoral college, without going negative. If he and McCain manage to conduct a civil campaign based on issues more than attacks, it'll be reversing a trend that has calcified and poisoned presidential politics for decades.
Third, regardless of your political persuasion, and regardless of which candidate you personally supported or support, this 2008 presidential election race already has emerged as an amazingly dramatic, surprising and pivotal contest. Every election is important, but, to paraphrase Animal Farm, some are more equal than others.
This one seems huge. And for the Democrats, one big, long chapter ended last night -- and the next chapter began immediately. Already today, morning talk and news shows are buzzing about whether there really should be a Obama-Clinton ticket. On CNN, John King went so far as to work out the possibilities on his infamous touch screen. Instead of just Blue states and Red states, his what-if board had baby blues, too, indicating states won by Clinton in the Democratic primaries, and so on.
There's a lot of second-guessing, and third-guessing, left to come. My guess is, if trends continue, a lot of those guesses will be dead wrong. But we are witnessing history here, so enjoy it... and whatever your opinions and beliefs, participate in it.
"Sex" Adjusts Opening-Week Total, But Winner Stays the Same Here
June 3, 2008 11:15 AM
Somehow, when the final tally was made for the opening-weekend U.S. box-office receipts of Sex and the City, the total was adjusted from an estimated $55.7 million to an even more impressive $56.8. Somewhere, someone had temporarily misplaced $1.1 million in ticket sales...
What does this mean? For one thing, it dilutes my bragging rights somewhat, since I had predicted an opening-weekend take of $55 million. Now I'm not quite so "on the money," but hey, I'll take it.
The good news is, the enhanced take doesn't change the winner of our little TV Worth Watching reader contest here. Chris Jones, with a bid of $53 million, remains the person who bid closest without going over. Though now, with a bid of $57 million, another Chris, Chris Collins, came closest of any of us -- but went over by a paltry $200,000...
Congratulations, Chris. Sorry, Chris.
The Get Smart movie opens in a few weeks. Maybe we'll do this again...
"Sex" Sells -- $55.7 Million Worth! Who Would Have Guessed? (Besides Me...)
June 2, 2008 7:17 AM
Carrie and company did it, Big time. Go figure: The biggest debut weekend ever for a romantic comedy came from a movie based on a TV series. And the makers of Sex and the City already are huddling, trying to go figure how to cash in with a sequel.
That might be a mistake, but the opening-weekend take of $55.7 million proves overwhelmingly that the appetite for Sex, among the female audience, was huge. It was an R-rated movie, yet drew enough fans to rank fifth on the all-time list of R-rated opening-weekend grosses. And the audience for Sex was 85 percent female, a pop-culture percentage I don't think I've seen replicated outside an Oprah Winfrey taping.
My daughter, Kristin -- law-school graduate, about to turn 26 -- gathered two dozen friends, all but two of whom were female, and all but two of whom (the same two, I'm hoping) dressed as their favorite Sex and the City character. Kristin reported, over the weekend, that most women in the audience did the same.
Was that purely an opening-weekend phenomenon, or will this movie turn into a fashion-conscious Rocky Horror Picture Show, with audiences bringing their own toast, umbrellas and interactive attitude? I'm guessing the former... and that the second-week figures for this movie will drop precipitously. Everyone who wanted to see it already has seen it. Watching a second time? No Big deal.
And a sequel may be similarly dicey, because the appetite may have been whetted by this first film, which provided a sense of closure, and a sense of being some sort of an "event." If another movie is made, it won't be an event. It'll be a... sequel.
Speaking of guessing about Sex and the City, it's time to identify and reward the TV WORTH WATCHING reader who came closest to guessing the opening-weekend domestic grosses for the movie without going over.
I wrote here, last week, that I had written, days before the movie opened, a column about Sex and the City for Broadcasting & Cable magazine, which would, among other things, predict the opening-weekend box-office. That column was published today by B & C, and can be read online here.
Guess what I guessed? $55 million. Guess what the opening weekend really was? $55.7 million.
Take that, Carnac the Magnificent!
Among you readers, the winner was Chris Jones, who predicted Sex and the City would pull in a hefty $53 million. Good for you, Chris. I'll contact you by your private email, and you can claim and select your prize from among a sampling of weird TV and movie crap from my basement floor. An Amazing Race travel kit, perhaps? Or a Walk the Line Johnny Cash action figure?
Anyway, thanks for playing, everybody. And, most of all, thanks for reading...
