Fall 2008 broadcast television season

Next week starts the new television season. New shows and many old ones will be back, seeking to gain your attention. Now I rarely watch broadcast television these days because the general tone is mind-numbing programs meant to keep you in one place while you get to see the television commercials that are the real important point. But what will this season bring?

Well on Monday the big winner is the return of the Sarah Connor Chronicles. The continuation of the Terminator movies in a TV format. This should also receive and give a boost to the up-coming Terminator movie that takes place after the machines have made their first strike.

Of course there is Monday Night Football. Or you can watch celebrities dance.

For Tuesday hands-down House is the winner. This show has a great lead actors, intelligent writing, and is bitingly sarcastic. All winning parts in a television show to me. But this might be a bit too high-brow for some.

That means in the same time slot you can get comatose watching the new version of 90210 – which I despise – or families taking on questions about each other in a ‘revisioned’ family-safe version of the Dating Game. I’d rather watch the original Dating Game re-runs than these 2.

After that you have the choice of going to sleep, watching more celebrities dance, or try on The Menatlist. The Menatlist is basically a broadcast version of Monk, without the neurosis and adding in a lot more guilt. It may be good, but I always tend to prefer the originals to copycats.

Wednesday is the perfect night to work overtime, learn how to play GO, or revisit the coma inducing qualities that television writers these days excel at. Maybe if you are a complete car fanatic you might want to watch one episode of the new Knight Rider program. But I would suggest reading Wuthering Heights. You’ll get the same type of thrill.

On Thursday there is the chance to see CSI. With the addition of Laurence Fishburne there are so many interesting storylines that can be tapped into, especially if he becomes a serial murderer. But before that comes on, you can always have a late dinner.

Still some just will insist on watching TV from 8 til 9. So that means Ugly Betty or Smallville. But really, why not catch up on politics, or learn about investing. You’ll do better and save more brain cells.

On Friday you have just enough time to see Everybody Hates Chris, get dressed, and go out for the night. If you are sitting in the home and watching the drivel on TV this night you have to be 80. It’s the perfect time to go to the gym and excercise off the extra pounds you gained mind-melding with the couch earlier in the week.

Saturday you can watch college football, or fix the house like your significant other has been bugging you about. Again if you are in during this night you really have no life. Go bowling, or watch the grass grow if you hate football.

Sunday has 60 minutes and Sunday Night Football. The Simpson’s are too old, King of the Hill is not worth missing the opening kick off, Family Guy is good but can be caught on re-runs at Cartoon Network, and American Dad is too on and off.

Now later in the season Lost will return. I don’t see the excitement. Scrubs should be worth the time even on a new channel. Fear anything on the CW, and CBS as no winners coming in late.

24 is sure to be a great television show, and well worth the time. American Idol will sadly return to lower the collective IQ’s of America. Such is the fate of ‘reality TV’. Law & Order is a constant comfort, and a safe bet.

So this is my suggestion overall. Stop watching so much television. If 5 or 6 days out of the week you are watching broadcast TV you are in trouble. But if you have to watch something try this.

Monday – football of course.
Tuesday – Eureka
Wednesday – Mythbusters
Thursday – read a book, go out, or catch up on politics until time for CSI
Friday – Just go out
Saturday – enjoy real life, maybe have friends over for football and poker
Sunday – football and get some sleep.

Now this is not the perfect schedule. There is too much football. But it’s about as much television as anyone really needs. If you want to round out the missing or in-between hours I suggest the news.

Replacing Gil Grissom - Fishburne or Russell or Malkovich

Oh how the rumors are flying now. With the fact that William Petersen will be ending his well-known role of Gil Grissom on C.S.I. the race has been on for producers to find a replacement. Previously I stated that I felt without the presence of Grissom the show was more than likely to fold. I may have spoken too soon.

The buzz is out stating that Laurence Fishburne will be stepping in and heading the C.S.I. original. Now that is a surprise to me. Fishburne is a definite presence and is renown for his roles in movies, like Apocalypse Now, The Matrix, The Tuskegee Airmen as well as stage like Thurgood. Obviously the producers of C.S.I. are looking for serious star power to fill the gap Petersen will create.

Is this enough to make the show continue to be interesting and viable? That’s hard to say. The purported storyline that would go with the character replacing Grissom is that the character would have

“same genetic profile as a serial killer but hasn't previously acted on any homicidal impulses.”

Now what that exactly means I’m not sure. It could be a spin in the series similar to the premise on the cable television show Dexter – where the lead is a serial killer but works within the legal system. It could be that the thought of such could drive the back stories on the television program.

Either way I am sure that Laurence Fishburne is more than capable enough to lead this popular show.

But the Hollywood rumor mill has a few other choices in mind as well. Also slated to be in the running for this program is John Malkovich and Kurt Russell. Both are strong film leading men, just like Fishburne.

For me, considering the proposed storyline that goes with the top spot, I would prefer Kurt Russell I think. He has a hard edge (like the Snake Plisken character from Escape from New York) to his characters that could be played well off of his generally calm demeanor. I can easily see him as a very dark, but highly charming character.

It’s not that Laurence Fishburne or John Malkovich can’t do the same, they have. But I think Russell can be more believable as a vile, sinister, evil and yet deceptive character. He really has the look for it.

So here is a question, who would you prefer as the lead of C.S.I. – with the understanding that he may or may not also be a serial killer:

• Laurence Fishburne
  
  
• John Malkovich
  
  
• Kurt Russell
  

Television gets old and new

So there is a bunch of news in the world of television. There is an old friend returning and a current favorite departing.

The first item I noticed deals with the loss of a current favorite. I really enjoy CSI, the original. The character of William Petersen is that something extra you don’t often see on any program. He’s unabashedly intelligent, loyal, dedicated, and relatively issue free. In current television and a media that’s obsessed with the quirks of every personality, real or imagined, you really don’t see this.

But after soo many years, Gil Grissom will be leaving CSI for good. And I believe the series will end shortly thereafter.

Face it, Gil makes the show go round. Unlike other programs like Law & Order, or E.R., where every character is replaceable CSI is driven from the top down. [Note that in E.R. the loss of several actors – George Clooney, Anthony Edwards, Noah Wyle – the ratings have diminished with each exit. This show should have ended the day that Wyle left as his character was the central theme that made it make all sense. Since his departure I know none that watch it. A similar statement can be made about Jerry Orbauch and his Lenny Briscoe character.] The show can survive the loss of most any other character, and has, but Grissom is the glue that keeps it together.

So I think this next season will be the end of this program. What a shame.

But the timing could be worse. 2 or 3 years ago such an impending thought might have meant that yet another reality program would be hitting the airwaves (I think the only thing left was to watch celebrities and ordinary attention deprived adults make coffee). Alas that trend if finally dying, none to soon either. So the void needs something big to fill it.

That honor will likely go to Michael J. Fox. He is returning to the small screen. But not in a series. Still the fact that less competition will exist and quality acting will be available was not missed on Dennis Leary. He convinced Fox to join him in his hit show Rescue Me.

If you have not seen the drama, then you aren’t watching FX Network, and I can’t imagine why not. Rescue Me is hard to describe. It’s the life of a fire station, particularly the Dennis Leary lead. His life is enough of a mess to make Perez Hilton look normal, and Britney Spears sane. But it is written honestly and with intelligence. It has moments to challenge your views, and make you laugh. It’s almost real, and that’s where the pleasure is.

Michael J Fox will add to this. He is playing a man in a wheelchair, which plays on his known illness. He is the love interest of the overly jealous and easily prone to violent outburst Leary’s estranged wife. If you want to see drama imagine the reactions of a man who saves lives on a regular basis, is jealous, is violent, who occasionally speaks with dead people, as he hits a man in a wheelchair. It’s a low act and he will be fighting with himself over that, as Fox plays the moment with a performance that we rarely get to see.

Or at least that’s what I’m expecting. We shall see.

The honesty only the Boondocks provides - 10.16.2007.1

I just love the Boondocks cartoon on Adult Swim. The honesty that is contained in that is more than what is seen in a dozen programs throughout all television right now. Live action could never get away with the obvious facts one half hour of this program provides.

From the R. Kelly trial (which in real life has waited 5 years and still has yet to occur), to pimps, Oprah and Dr. Martin Luther King there is a direct honesty that would cause an uproar in another format. In the caricatures of the lead and recurring characters we get to see multiple aspects of Black Americans. That’s a diversity that is only approached by combining characters from the Shield, CSI, Eureka, Blade: the series and Mind of Mencia all into one program. It’s also interesting to note that that’s almost all the leading and major supporting African American characters on television (combining cable and broadcast) at this time.

I don’t know what is more alarming. That the Boondocks is not the most watched program by African Americans, that BET (Black Entertainment Television) was incapable of securing this program themselves, or that my allusion that the diversity in this program exceeds virtually all other programs with African Americans combined is almost accurate. And yet so few see the program while that most don’t get it.

Often social commentary is best stated in formats that are seen as the least confrontational. That’s why, when done by the best performers like Mr. Richard Pryor or Mr. Lenny Bruce, the greatest impact occurs without the direct confrontation a discussion often brings.

As Huey states in one episode, [I paraphrase]

“America has done a multitude of injustice to Blacks, but that does not mean everything is an injustice, or that this makes every African American a hero.”

R Kelly is not a hero, OJ is culpable, and Dr. Martin Luther King would be appalled with the state of the Black community today. It may seem funny when a cartoon character says it, but it doesn’t change the fact that it’s the truth. And it’s a shame the greatest honesty and diversity can only occur in an animated program in the year 2007.

What about Rocky? - 12.28.2006.1

Have you seen the latest Rocky movie? I haven’t, and I will probably pick it up as a DVD or from a bootleg. Given that I was watching a couple of programs and noticed a couple of things about the Rocky movies I started to wonder. The movies have been successful, and I have seen the first 4 in the series. I have enjoyed the ones I’ve seen. That said there are some things that I wonder about.

When I look at the latest movie trailers and I consider that there has not been a champion boxer that has been White in decades, is part of the success due to the dream (or wish) that it was true for the white patrons viewing the film? Is the entire Rocky series just wishful fulfillment for the millions of White Americans that have lost a connection with the boxers that have held titles for years now? It’s a deeper question than is seems to be. I think it also may be more accurate than it appears on the surface.

The ultimate way to view this is to ask ‘would Rocky still be the success it is if the lead character was black’? On top of that would the movies work if the black lead were fighting a white champion? Do either of these things change the movies?

To answer the first question the answer should be it makes no difference. But that answer would be rhetoric and untrue. It does make a difference. Envisioning the movies and placing a black lead does not fit, and it’s not because Mr. Sylvester Stallone was so great. There are many movies that anyone can envision another actor portraying as well if not better than the actual actor in the film. Only truly classic films, like It’s a Wonderful Life or The Godfather are examples of movies where either the acting or the storyline (or a combination of both) prevent seeing another in that role. Rocky is not a classic film, good but not classic and there are other actors that could have done it.

So why does that make a difference? Because it wouldn’t be an underdog story. If this were a movie done in the era of the 1930’s or so it wouldn’t work. It wouldn’t work with a black champion or lead. It’s just too unbelievable. Which is sad because it should be able to work.

Yet I cab understand the need to feel connected. I would imagine millions of Black Americans have no connection to most of the programs on television, like I do. While there are good shows out there I’ve noticed that shows where there is some type of diversity tend to attract my attention more than others. The Blade series, the Shield, Eureka, House, CSI and other shows have character(s) that I can empathize with more and in part I want to see how those character fare in those series. Shows like Seinfeld, Friends, Will & Grace did not, and I viewed them occasionally but never felt a connection to them. [Shows like Cheer, Frasier, Moonlighting and others were favorites without connection to similar characters.]

This also feeds into the desire of connection with the film. An audience needs to feel connected to the characters and/or the situation. While there is no denying that fans of all races and nationalities enjoy boxing today, there is also no denying that many would like to see a White champion. It’s natural. They can connect with that character. It’s no different than the millions of African Americans that connected with Mr. Muhammad Ali, or Mr. Tiger Woods as they took the world stage by storm. Even in basketball this is true, though to a lesser extent, and in football with quarterbacks like Mr. Warren Moon and others. The fans can see themselves as that figure and can connect more completely with their success. It’s wish fulfillment.

In terms of Rocky, the success of non-White athletes is not an underdog story but somewhat of a given as there have been decades of champions without a White contender. I think the last real shot was Mr. Cooney some time ago. I could be wrong and please let me know if I am.

So Is Rocky really a great series of films, or a good film propelled by the desires that are unrealized in the real world? And what does that mean about the psyche of America? Does that mean a White champion would make more money just because of his skin color? That a so-so contender would be paid more, and propelled up the ranks faster just to give fans a new dream?

Given that there is no direct connection between reality and the movies, it’s interesting how close the character of Apollo is to Mr. Ali and Mr. Joe Frasier. The character of Clubber Lang (the début film for former bouncer Mr. T) seems eerily like Mr. Mike Tyson, thought the release pre-dates Mr. Tyson by 4 years.

I realize that the film is regarded as a classic by many, and that it won 3 Oscar Awards. I understand that it made over 100 million dollars in profit. Even so, it is not on the caliber of the Marathon Man, The Sting, and others. The question remains in my mind what is behind the great performance of these movies (the 3rd and 4th movies were not nearly as good as the first 2 and made more money). And what does that mean if I am correct.

Or am I just letting my mind wander too much?

This is what I think, what do you think?